If you want to understand (Subtractive) synthesis. The best way is to get copy of VCV rack and follow a few tutorials. If you patch one subtractive mono synth voice once, you understand 80% of all subtractive synth architecture moving forward.
https://vcvrack.com (open source and wonderful)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V35OhojjqDs <- your first tutorial
Happy patching :)
There's a bunch of other really interesting types of synthesis and you can explore them using the above software
- Frequency/phase modulation synthesis
- Vector synthesis
- physical modeling/Karplus strong
- Additive synthesis
- Eastcoast (subtractive)
- Westcoast (waveshaping/LP gates)Personally I'm not sure I'd use VCV rack as an entry into subtractive synthesis, simply because there's so much to modular synthesis it could be hard to untangle one concept from another. That being said, I think it is a great intro to synthesis as a whole.
For me, it was the microbrute which really taught me subtractive synthesis, simply because of how stripped back it was, I couldn't just add a new module to cover up my bad sound design. Though obviously that's far less accessible (£150 hardware synth versus free software you can load up right now), I'm sure there'd be a middle ground. I know iOS is really good for its synth ecosystem, maybe there's a nice subtractive synth there.
I did exactly that as well. I wanted to figure out what a synthesizer does/is, so I bought a MicroBrute and had a great deal of fun with it.
So much fun, in fact, that I bought a MatrixBrute not terribly long afterward. Now _that's_ a monosynth to last me a lifetime!
Good lord what a horrible recommendation. This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly.
If you want to actually learn subtractive synthesis minus the complexity use an all in one synth VST like Surge which is free and open source and you won't have to worry about tedious fundamentals that don't actually matter unless you're doing modular synthesis. Helm is another great VST.
Once you understand subtractive you can graduate to more complicated methods of synthesis like FM, vector, ETC.
I disagree... those "tedious fundamentals" is how all synths work, irregardless of synthesis type.
Watch the video. It's 15 minutes. I wish I could learn assembly in 15 minutes! You build the synth one module and one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope.
If I gave someone a SH-101 with no context, and let them noodle around with it and then asked them, to explain the architecture, they wouldn't be able to.
Sure, they may make some cool noises buy they wouldn't understand, what is what, why is hooked up to what and how that might differ on some other fixed architecture synth.
While I agree that basically all subtractive synthesizers work the same way I started "learning" how they work when I was ~12. It wasn't until my mid 30s until I got into modular and I realized "hey all my synths are basically routed this way, neat." Has it changed the way I think about how I make a patch? Not at all. It is cool to know how they're architected but it in no way will really help you in learning how to use them so I agree with the comment you're replying to. Get an all in one synth and start making patches.
If you gave someone an SH-101 and explained to them how it was architected it wouldn't really help them make that signature acid bass sound so ya they'd be a little more knowledgeable on how synthesizers technically work but they still wouldn't be able to make any music with it. Whereas if I showed them how to make that bass sound they could now go try it on every other subtractive synth they run into even if it doesn't sound the same. Besides that, they'd learn how a lot of it works in a musical sense which is way more important to using synths than any technical knowledge will give you if you actually want to write music.
The original post is about synthesis and learning about synthesis. Not music theory or how to program an acid patch. Those are separate skills.
No it isn't, the original post is "Learning Synths", not "Learning Synthesis". It actually is a tutorial on how you might go about programming an acid patch (or a bass, or a wind instrument, or whatever).
It's not how all synths work, probably the most famous FM synth the DX-7 never had a filter, additive synths don't really need filters either, but for a subtractive synth this would be unthinkable. And the general architecture of any synth is usually not that hard, you have a source, possibly filters, an amp and some modulators.
My friend, with the app above you can take 6 VCOs, have them modulate each other and understand how the FM(phase) synthesis on a DX7 works. Instead of guessing. Explore why certain ratios produce bell like tones etc.
One of may favorite digital synths is the TX-81z. 4op FM. One of the first digital synths where the operators weren’t restricted to sine waves. (DX7 had 6op FM)
If you just look at the specs. And even play with the values you won’t understand why one synth could obtain sounds the other couldn’t.
That “source” is usually the synthesis method.(usually the complicated part outside of anything that’s not a traditional VCO)
If you have a filter, the resonance imparts a particular sound as well.
Digitone is 4op fm as the source then that’s funneled through a pretty standard east coast architecture.
Sure, they may make some cool noises
That is the point of making music.
The rest is exhaust fumes.
You don’t have to know how something works to know how it sounds.
And nobody ever danced to a lecture on signal flow.
Again, the OPs post is an introduction to synthesis. Good luck finding those “sounds.”
You don’t have to know theory to make acid with a TB-303, i.e. the subtractive synth that changed music the most.
> You build the synth one module and one connection at a time all connected to an oscilloscope.
making my music hobby feel like my job sounds terrible lol
I’m sorry :( I get it. It’s how I feel about DAWs.
Surge is incredibly complex and powerful and will be way overwhelming to a new user. They will be rediced to browsing the patch library not really understanding how things work.
With VCVRack and the right tutorial, a user will build a basic synth with an oscillator, filter, amp and envelope generator - which together make up the fundamental core of subtractive synthesis. The manual patching of modular is a great way to actually learn how these building blocks interact with one another to create sound.
I actually really think that starting with assembly would be a great place for someone to start learning programming. But not x86 and not on a traditional PC. Instead using some microcontroller attached to a breadboard with a few simple peripherals like a keypad, simple LCD (or maybe an 8-segment).
The control-flow is obvious, the syntax is simple enough that novices shouldn't struggle with it, and writing directly to pins to control the peripherals gives immediate concrete feedback.
> This is like telling someone to learn programming by starting with assembly.
Believe it or not, this is some people's preferred learning style. See also: Nand2Tetris, Linux From Scratch
OP actually gave pretty sound advice. maybe be a little more constructive next time and less edgelord.
Came here to say this. I would recommend surge or vital as a starting point.
I bought a Moog Mother-32 and read the manual - I remember it being very thick (for modern music gear) and informative. I didn't do too much patching but by the time I was done I understood the basics of subtractive synthesis.
A few years earlier I also had a DX9 that I foolishly used to try and emulate analog sounds. Somehow I stumbled across an article on Fourier series and how infinite sinusoidal summations could be used to create the other types of fundamental waves. Programming a 4-op DX synth to emulate these and looking at waveforms in Audacity gave me a natural intuition for how time series waves relate to frequency and harmonic content.
If I had to do it all again I might get a Korg Minilogue since it can display waveforms on its LCD and is digitally-controlled.
Yes! The Minilogue was where it clicked for me - solely because is its oscilloscope
I have never in 30 years of synths read subtractive synthesis called Eastcoast or waveshaping called Westcoast.
Especially to put what it is actually called in parenthesis as if everyone calls subtractive synthesis "Eastcoast".
This is certainly something very specific to the path you took with synths.
I really hate to be that guy but… the terms “East Coast” and “West Coast” synthesis are pretty mainstream within the synth community, especially among those who follow the history and styles of modular synthesis. These distinctions were popularized as a way to categorize the approaches of pioneers like Bob Moog, I’m sure you’ve heard of him. (East Coast) and Don Buchla (West Coast).
East Coast synthesis, often associated with subtractive synthesis, emphasizes traditional keyboard performance, harmonic richness, and filters to shape sound. Meanwhile, West Coast synthesis (credited to Buchla) leans more experimental, focusing on waveshaping, FM synthesis, and unconventional control interfaces.
The terms themselves have been around for decades and have become shorthand to describe these philosophies of synthesis design and architecture of synths. You might not hear them as much outside modular or academic circles, but they’re far from obscure.
Came here to post something similar, so I'll upvote your comment, and add my own. I started building a Eurorack modular synthesizer in 2009. Prior to that I would mostly tweak presets on other synths. I knew what the filter did, and could adjust an envelope, but didn't have a fundamental understanding of what was going on.
When I started using the modular, I was forced to understand the signal flow. And, the patch cables provided a visual cue of what was happening. I learned more about synths in a year with my eurorack system than I did in the previous 10 with hardwired synths.
After you learn those basic rules for patching a synth, then you get to break them. (-:
Recommending something like VCV rack seems like starting with Calculus before you can solve 2+2, but it's really not. The signal flow is right there for you to observe.
Tangential, if you want to learn sound from synthesis, check out Syntorial… you’ll be able to hear a sound and approximate it via subtractive synthesis!
unpopular hot take:
subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis. It's a transformation.
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!
They are certainly more than meets the eye.
I mean, there's a fair amount of hype about transformers right now.
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".
By their definition, an amplitude envelope would probably also be a transformation.
Well, "transformer" is already a kind of device. Do you have a suggested name to replace "synthesiser"?
A filter perhaps isn't synthesis, but the whole system, including oscillators would be, which seems to be what the term refers to.
You're getting downvoted for some reason but this is a perfectly fine way to think about subtractive synthesis. (From a compositional perspective anyhow.)
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.
Delays aren’t filters.
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.
Related. Others?
Getting Started Making Sounds - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31434208 - May 2022 (3 comments)
Abletone Learning Synth - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31279526 - May 2022 (63 comments)
Synth Playground - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26429207 - March 2021 (21 comments)
Learning Synths - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20272346 - June 2019 (172 comments)
I'm glad I'm not going mad thinking I've seen this link 5 times before here; I had an off-by-one error by including this example in the tally.
Syntorial is also popular and posted here many times.
Looks like Syntorial is an app, whereas Ableton link is web based. Would be nice to see Syntorial converted to a web app.
I was going to post it as well. And also from the same creator "building blocks" a similar tool for music creation instead of sound design
Syntorial was how I first learned and I was pretty happy with it.
My browser put up a dialog asking for permission to control midi devices before the site showed anything.
It's a good idea to show content before your page does anything that asks for scary permissions. (And, honestly, without knowing what the site does, its pretty scary to click on a link on hacker news and have a site ask for elevated permissions before it shows anything.)
The presentation is cool but the order here is pretty bad. When teaching subtractive synthesis, you really should start with the oscillators and their waveforms (sine, tri, saw, square), then talk about filter, then amplitude. That’s really all there is to it - create a fundamental and a series of harmonics, carve it away with a filter and then give it an amplitude envelope. I love Ableton, but I think they may have been a bit too focused on making this look nice.
I'd recommend a simple subtractive synth as a first:
>Behringer Model D >Novation Bass Station 2
Recommending VCV is horrible advice - unless your idea of learning synthesis is getting RSI...I think VCV is a great testing bed for trying modular ideas...once you understand synthesis...i think a huge draw back of VCV is the plethora of choice - it's just way way too much.
I learnt modular on a real life Doepfer modular...it was frustrating as hell until things starting clicking - i cant imagine the feedback loop on software being that good.
I would challenge what you’re saying. An integrated synthesizer like the Model D doesn’t make the normalled signal path apparent. On the other hand, modular forces you to see exactly what’s happening. You wire an oscillator to a filter. You wire the filter to the VCA. You trigger the VCA with a voltage envelope. You need a good teacher or tutorial, but if you have that, modular or virtual modular is a far better teaching tool IMO.
I've been playing synths and piano for a while, but I've been struggling to get some solid intuitions about what is going on when I tweak the synths. One thing that really helped on this site, is the «dot» that is bouncing back and forth on https://learningsynths.ableton.com/en/playground . Try tweaking the nobs and see how the dots movement changes. It helped me visualize something that I wasn't able to grasp before. Nice link!
The best way I found to understand a bit more about how synths work, was to give VCVRack a try. Basically "build your own synth" in a box, AKA " Modular synthesizer", which lets you build what a mainstream synth comes with, from scratch.
There is also Cardinal, a GPL fork that you can run as a plugin directly in your DAW of choice (I believe you need the paid VCV Rack to do that):
I tend to thing that non-modular is a better place to start. Modular is great, I've wasted untold shameful consumerist dollars on Eurorack, but I think it's better to get the core concepts from a well-known fixed-architecture synth (like a Minimoog clone/VST) before moving on to modular. Modular can be very overwhelming when you're new.
To this point, are there any free/cheap apps/browser apps that clone simple/older/well known synths you'd (or others here) would recommend for skilling up a bit? Doesn't need to be anywhere near pro quality sound-wise, not what I'm after.
A million years ago I had some analogue korg model and have been interested in playing around again. But I know myself well enough to know that my interest may very well be fleeting and I don't want to invest much in the way of $$ to go that route.
Sylenth has a free trial. Garageband probably has an analogue synth in it. There's also v station:
https://stgdownloads.novationmusic.com/novation/novation-sof...
I guess semi-modular is a good half-way :)
Personally, I'm not into modular synths, so I don't recommend them as "Stop buying synths and start doing modular synths" but more like "If you're already into synths, but want to learn more about how they actually synthesize the sound, give VCVRack a try", merely as a learning tool.
It’s also pretty easy to create your own VCV Rack modules, assuming you don’t mind doing a little math.
Some VSTs animate the modulated controls, which is awesome because it immediately makes clear how one thing impacts another. I believe Serum does this?
I like synths with movements instead of keys a lot better. They give me that old sci-fi vibe. It's something that should be nice with the Quest VR handtracking.
(but no, really not like this; https://www.meta.com/en-gb/experiences/synthvr/3748465338566... ; then I would just get a real synth)
These days there are several tools that map hand tracking to MIDI CCs and notes, you might enjoy something like that. It's on my list to try sometime in 2025. :-)
Here's an example, although I'm not sure if it's good or not because I haven't tried it yet. https://www.uwyn.com/geco/
That's mainly just the 'sweep' or portamento between notes that's indicative of things like the Theremin or 50s Sci-Fi sound.
Check out the Ondes Martenot for a compromise between the two paradigms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ondes_Martenot
For those so inclined, that want to play with synth in some more programmatic way, there is a lisp dialect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist_(programming_language)) for it.
There are many, many more languages for playing around with audio (and video) synthesis than that. The domain is typically called livecoding. Here's a good list of languages for that:
Similar to this, a while ago I made this online playground (Lambda Musika) where you can program sound realtime in your browser (using JS) in a functional-ish way:
https://lambda.cuesta.dev/ (repo: https://github.com/alvaro-cuesta/lambda-musika) -- check out the examples on the bottom toolbar's blue button.
The basic idea is you write a function `t => [l, r]` where `t` is time and `l`, `r` are output samples for the left and right channels in `[-1, 1]` range. You can think of it like ShaderToy but for sound synthesis.
It includes a small utility library but it's meant to be just a few helper functions instead of a full-fledged framework like SuperCollider, Sonic Pi, et al. I.e. it's still sample-oriented instead of module-oriented. E.g. in Sonic Pi you script modules, their parameters, and how they connect with each other, while Lambda Musika is all about outputting samples of a waveform.
It's very barebones -- I'd love to get some time to upgrade this to Monaco editor and add TS, intellisense, etc. -- and possibly buggy, but I still find myself coming from time to have some fun with it.
There's also stuff like Sonic Pi (https://sonic-pi.net/) and most things live coding related, but I found that I don't really like that approach even though I love synths and programming. For some reason I don't think they go together well. But some people are really good with that and it's fascinating
Yes, I feel the same way, but then I started making music to get away from the computer, rather than finding even more things to spend time on with the computer, maybe that's why.
Nyquist is super ancient.
The links don't even work anymore on CMU.
Common Music might still work but I can't imagine bothering with Nyquist. https://ccrma.stanford.edu/software/clm/
There is just not much reason to not use SuperCollider or Csound instead of these though.
Edit: I did just find Nyquist has been rolled into Audacity scripting that sounds pretty cool https://audionyq.com/
There is also glicol, for example: https://glicol.org/demo#themodel Press start and after some time edit line 14 and press update
That's a neat browser permission prompt asking about MIDI, haven't seen that one before
edit: side note making sound is one thing, making something actually worth listening to...
MIDI support in browsers has gotta be like at least a decade old at this point, right?
I guess so I never got into making music, heard of the term but yeah cool to see.
The "Playing different pitches" section plays "The Final Countdown", arguably the greatest synth riff of all time. If you know it, just click the rhythm on that section.
The quick tour of Glicol that I made is also a way to learn digital sound synthesis:
Have fun
I recommend the re-issue of Allen Strange's Electronic Music: Systems, Techniques, and Controls.
It was successfully launched on Kickstarter a while ago, and is now available through a few retailers.
Actually posted about learning something new in 2025 and Synths came up. Quite like this site.
On older phone I had a fun touch-synth called Etherpad but it says it's not compatible with my newer phone.
What's the best way to learn piano via keyboard like a professional ?
Take lessons with a piano teacher and practice a lot on your own.
As a lazy synthdad, father of a piano virtuoso who makes fun of my musical clumsiness, I concur: listen to music, watch music being played and read about music all you want... It won't get you very far: music requires practice, practice and practice daily, even if just a little - and memorizing some scales and chords goes a long way too.
Doing scales, chords and arpeggios can get you far enough, that people who do both know enough think you are a virtuoso. You can make a piano sound great (at least for no experts). But at the end practice is all cannot emphasize enough. Take simple music you really like and want to play to start and have motivation. Finding a good teacher is hard (at least it was for me) (s)he should be interested in the music you want to play, be ok with what you want to learn (some think everybody must be an orchestral pianist) and have a good repertoire of techniques for helping you.
> be ok with what you want to learn (some think everybody must be an orchestral pianist)
I relate to that: I was inflicted a couple years of piano lessons as a kid, and hated every minute of it - because I detested the music that my teacher and my family considered appropriate.
40 years later, I stumble on electronic musics and realize I would enjoy making some - and I joyfully (and incompetently) began on that path, lately becoming ripe for some dry theory because I now value it.
Each person is different though: my daughter always enjoyed the technical exercises for their own sake !
When you say keyboard are you talking about a piano-type keyboard or a computer keyboard?
Computer keyboard .
Don't. Computer keyboards are inexpressive. You'll be giving up the ability to modulate note velocity/volume, for starters. Get a cheap MIDI keyboard for a few hundred bucks.
If instead of playing you're more interested in making cool sounds, I'd skip the keyboard completely and download a free DAW like Reaper, Ableton, or FL Studio.
Whichever route you take, the secret is practice. It always is...
> Don't. Computer keyboards are inexpressive.
Constraints can be a great thing.
Sure, but they can also be a hindrance, and that's been my experience playing music with my computer keyboard. If intervals are all you care about (and it's all you can care about) then I've found it easier to just enter notes with the mouse.
Alternatively, an Akai MPK Mini MK3 costs $100 and gives you twice the range, no limit on simultaneous keypresses, velocity sensitivity, a mod wheel, analog knobs, and velocity sensitive drum pads.
Not this one. It would be like finger painting, except you have to wear mittens.
It's not that bad.
It's pretty bad... This person's obviously talented, but their playing is riddled with mistakes and timing issues. That's not an issue with their playing, it's the constraints of the medium. For example, `[etuG]` is a chord from the video that's impossible to play as it requires a modifier key for 1 of the 4 notes. Plus, the use of modifier keys and the number row for low notes means that the experience no longer maps nicely to a piano. It's effectively learning a bespoke instrument.
This isn't necessarily a problem. As you say, constraints can breed creativity. A good musician should still be able to play great music, but for somebody just learning it's a lot of unnecessary friction.
I'm amazed by this.
At the same time, if this is the best one can hope for on a computer keyboard, I feel comfortable resting my case.
A little undermined by the fat finger within the first 10 seconds.
I think it's an intentional ornament.
Music is about nuance, finesse, expressivity.
You don't have that with a computer keyboard. Music is hard, don't set yourself for failure so early, for no good reason.
In this case it would likely be frustrating.
Many synthesizers (especially softsynths) map changes in sound to velocity, that is, how hard you hit the key. Hitting the key harder makes a different sound (e.g. layers more samples) than hitting it softly.
It can be a great thing.
But it can't help you learn piano, which is what the top-level comment asked for.
I've been playing piano/keyboards for 35 years. I definitely don't play at a "professional" level, but I gig locally, and can play pretty well by ear, and in an ensemble. I'm not an amazing player, but I have enough experience to know something about what you're talking about.
What you're asking about is impossible. Not just difficult. You might be able to learn something about moving your fingers independently with rhythm on a computer keyboard. But at about the time you get to one week of experience, you'll probably be doing at least as much harm as good in terms of learning to play piano music on a computer keyboard. It is too different.
Partial list of problems:
Size of keys
Position of keys
Number of keys
Travel distance of keys
Velocity sensitivity of keys
Sufficiently low latency of audio output (can be solved with pro audio hardware)
If you don't want to get a controller then I'd recommend fooling around with a sequencer instead.
Oh OK my bad, I didn't get that. Seems like a strange idea to me. If money is the issue, you can probably find a decent second hand MIDI keyboard for a very reasonable price.
Oh. Dismiss my message:)
So far for me this has worked well:
1. Choose a song you like and find out what chords are needed to play it.
2. Learn those chords and practice playing the song.
Use a keyboard with weighted keys for best results.
Refs:
It has nothing to do with Synth though. Why not just start a HN Ask thread?