Horses for courses... and dogmas for decorum

The British expression "horses for courses" originated from the world of horse racing, and it means that different things are best suited for... different things, as certain horses were better suited for certain types of races.

Despite a horse racing parallel, this post would take a leap into the field of sound synthesis methods (and the hype around them) - hence the reason for the expression might become apparent shortly.

So... this post was triggered by a recurring question seen on forums: why doesn't somebody make an analogue FM synth (in specific context, meaning multi-operator complex FM synths)?

Another trigger was  a "demonstration" of "wavetable synthesis" done some time ago with 2 analogue waveforms, triumphantly stating that this is proof that it can be done via analogue means.

This is the point where, in some minds, the analogue synthesis methods move from a solid technological sphere into a realm of fetishes. It is also a perfect example for the case when the astute 'horses for courses' principle is clearly being violated.

Yes, analogue synthesizers have superb capabilities and a distinct personality - unique even, in some cases.

Vast research and development efforts have been spent by companies of all sizes in attempts to perfectly imitate the "analogue sound". Their imperfections and instabilities are one of the, if not the, most crucial features that give them their unique sound. Emulating these imperfections via digital means only seems simple, but actually it is a fiendishly difficult and complex task.

Yamaha DX7

However, if one sees analogue synthesis, due to all its merits and stemming also from undoubtedly hyped discourses on quite ill-informed forums, as "the" method to apply to everything, then one commits a fundamental technical and conceptual error.

This leads to proposals like the mentioned case of making a multi-operator FM synth to "beat" the digital beasts dating all the way back to the era-defining DX7.

It can be imagined, and to an extent, even created in a lab - yes, technology certainly allows it. However, it would be eminently pointless and a supreme waste of effort, if one considers the fact that the mentioned instrument needs to leave the lab and is to be used as an... instrument.

Reasons? Well, tiny changes to the so-called FM operators' parameters can cause vast changes to the sound. What is a mere case of oscillator drifting out of tune in case of substractive analog synths, in FM case this often brings radical changes to what we hear. Reasons are buried in FM synthesis theory, but they are far from obscure reasons.

In simplest case, we can imagine these operators as oscillators with simple waveforms, but later generations of FM synths do vastly more than that. Changing their frequencies can radically alter the resulting spectrum, as one operator modulates other(s) and even has feedback - and if their frequency  drifts, the resulting spectral components shift around - hence fundamentally affect the tones we hear. Not to mention the controls to these operators, which have to have well-synchronised envelopes and precise amounts usually.

Also, in this hypothetical example, even if we assume the analogue multi-operator FM concoction is stable and perfectly controllable (it would be neither), the musician would want to recreate later the FM patch he or she arrived at. This can only be imagined with copious help from digital technology and digital to analogue converters - similar to how early analogue synths acquired patch memory.

However, even in this case (and obviously we already have digital creeping in, albeit not strictly in the sound synthesis part itself), the resulting complexity is, simply put, a mind-blowing mess.

Even in the case of digital FM synths, the constant and justified polemic is centred on the difficulty to program them, and the need for very intuitive and stable interfaces in often outboard software, so that one can cope with even thousands of parameters at play. A supreme and to this day not equalled FM monster like the Yamaha FS1R died as a product shortly after its release, and this was not due to its astonishing (!) sonic capabilities, but its user interface.

Similarly, what was once triumphantly demonstrated in a Facebook synth group as "wavetable synthesis", as an analogue concoction managed to morph the output signal from one simple waveform to another, was something that still firmly resides in a hobby lab.

PPG Wave

Also, it simply just wasn't wavetable synthesis, full stop, in the Wolfgang Palm sense (which led to the revolutionary PPG Wave and its successors, like the current Waldorf Blofeld).

It just isn't wavetable synthesis, by definition... as latter needs perfectly stable and precisely "sliced" waveform parts stored in precise manner in a table, and then precise sweeps that index in this table in perfectly controlled and even modulated manner.

Also, those waveforms are eminently digital, because the wavetables store samples of these waveforms... and then a synth based on this method is scanning those tables. By definition, one cannot have analog waveform slices kept in a static table of values... only digital samples of those waveforms...

The resulting revolutionary sounds' spectral content simply cannot be achieved by a few analogue waveforms morphing into each other. Latter experiment posted on Facebook some time ago was similar to a demonstration of a slow and careful forward parking manoeuvre in a Trabant and then stating "tada, it is perfectly capable of doing all that a Bugatti Veyron can do!".

As a person who spent half a lifetime in signal processing technologies, it is, admittedly, a deplorable sight to see such waste of time, effort, and enthusiasm channeled in completely misguided directions and utter dead ends.

Personal note aside, where above two characteristic examples spectacularly fail is the factual misconception that a certain technology is THE answer for everything in sound synthesis.

The hype and downright fetishisation of analogue synths have a big role to play in the birth of such misconceptions.

Analogue synths are absolutely fantastic in... analogue synthesis, which usually means substractive or additive synthesis whereby oscillator waveforms are taken away from (via filters) or added to (by wave shaping or modulation effects that add harmonics).

Korg Kronos MOD7 top level view

Multi-operator and hybrid FM synthesis engines (e.g. FMX by Yamaha or MOD7 by Korg), wavetable synths (like PPG Wave or Waldorf Blofeld, etc.), granular synths (Waldorf Quantum and countless plugins are capable of this among many other things), the vast array of mighty samplers and so-called romplers (list would be simply huge), plus numerous eminently digital signal bending tricks (think wave sequencing and waveshaping from Korg), constitute vast and complex worlds - often very unique worlds.

Then we have the hybrid synths... Even the aforementioned PPG Wave was actually a hybrid,  since it had famous analogue filters after the digital signal chain. These synths can create phenomenal possibilities. The Korg Prologue flagship analogue synth with a digital add-on engine even lets the user write his/her own oscillators and effect engines, with any algorithm one can think of (that fits in the multi-engine's memory). The Roland JD-Xa can layer and combine complex sounds from both digital and analogue synth engines under its bonnet.

These all add to our sound synthesis and processing capabilities entire new and vast universes of sounds, which are simply impossible to create via analogue synths.

Excluding them in some absolutist hype is a classic and misguided dogmatic approach, and we can encounter it in many forums about electronic music and sound synthesis.

However, trying to replace some horses with others that are eminently unsuitable for, and factually incapable of running, certain courses is a futile at worst, tragicomic at best, attempt.

Conceptually, apart from signal processing theory and technology, where this exercise goes wrong from the start is the failure to see appropriate horses as mere devices to get us, via appropriate courses, to the finish line. Dogmas are not left for the decorum or the viewing area to talk about over a beer, they actually make their way onto the race track...

Analogue, as splendid and as hyped it may be, is not the answer to everything that recent decades of music technology produced. As shockingly obvious it may be to many, each approach has its strengths and weaknesses - and some horses are simply not suited, not even designed, to run certain courses.

Nobody attempted, certainly nobody succeeded, to create cobalt blue, cadmium yellow or ultramarine paints from plant-based pigments just to score some dogmatic point in the art of painting. Well, maybe some have tried, especially when e.g. certain minerals ran into some trade difficulties as it happened in the case of ultramarine, but the results are not exactly surrounding us in galleries... Artists used different paints with different characteristics for different tasks, and with a good reason...

The huge problem is when hype crosses a certain boundary, and makes certain words magical. Not

Waldorf Quantum display

only can hype achieve that, but also it can then make one forget that all, absolutely all, of our electronic instruments are... instruments. Nothing more.

If we forget that, then we can ask questions like one seen recently on a forum: why doesn't a certain major manufacturer see sense and "finally" create an analogue workstation.

Why the question was phenomenal nonsense, well, one can leave that to the reader (small hint, synth workstation product category definition with a feature list)... However, the fact that such conflating of methods, instruments, and categories is even possible, it is a testament to the power of synth hype.

It is a free world, and everybody is entitled to their prejudices, misconceptions, and beliefs - but this particular area is one in which those are at the same time creatively, artistically, and technologically self-defeating...  If hard to swallow, challenge is to name one single groundbreaking creative electronic artist who artificially excludes majority of sound synthesis methods from his or her arsenal, instead of looking at a range of tools to achieve his or her creative aim.