Thanks for your comment; there is only one episode after this one, then we are all done: I appreciate your support throughout!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The purpose of these sound design episodes are a mix of showing how the workflow of the synth works, and the range of sounds. The feedback I've got suggests people are interested in hearing more about how I think about designing a sound. This is good, as sound design is a topic I enjoy. Hopefully I can find a better way to present those useful bits in a more condensed and deliberate form. In any case: thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. If you are new to synths, my suggestion is to start by just using oscillator 1, no mutants, filter 1, envelope 1 and 2 and LFO 1 and 2 (and their normal routings to the filter and amplifier), and no mod slots. This limitation will help you focus on the basics, before expanding to use more oscillators, effects, modulation routings and mutants. Have fun with your synth!

@@ChalkWalkMusic thanks mate. Yep I’ve played a lot with those in ableton. So have a little understanding how they interact. I’m now trying to expand my synth vocabulary so I can get some interesting sound design. Thanks 👍

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The Minifreak was particularly difficult to film because the screen is so small. If I have the whole synth visible, the image isn't high resolution enough to enlarge from my top down. I think a better trade off might have been to just zoom in further on the synth so it wasn't all visible, to compensate, though I need the touch strips, and the effect knobs. I should probably also be willing to have the enlarged display overlap other panel controls, in the interest of readability. What I ended up doing was adding a mini, manual focus/zoom security camera I had around as an extra top down (cable tied to the boom) to try and catch the display. I think the solution would be a 4k top down. I'd still only make 1080p video, but the 4k input would allow me to capture the panel with enough fidelity to expand the display and keep it visible. On the whole, for this series, I'm not imagining people following along, so much as demonstrating some of what is possible. One the whole I like doing sound design content like this, but my general sound design focused content seems less successful overall vs specific tips, or more focused instructional material. I'll see what I can do: I did enjoy this sound in particular; I feel like the Minifreak might not be an obvious options as a drone synth, so this feels like a different take that came together well.

@@ChalkWalkMusic thanks for your detailed response! I guess I was thinking of these more like a tutorial. What if the 2nd version of the screen went below the keyboard so you can blow it up? I love these videos, and the features you highlight.

@@rycrump I guess under the keyboard could work; I don't think the layout would look great, but I suppose readability probably matters more. My purpose with these last few episodes is mostly to give a feel for how a real sound design workflow goes on the synth, and to give you some feel of the sound. I suppose they can double up as a tutorial for that type of sound, so perhaps I can try and present in a slightly more suitable manner for that. This will be a change for another series though, as I finished filming this one a while ago now. Thanks for your input, and I appreciate your support!

Thanks for watching: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I don't have any percussions sounds planned here, but I could do a video about making drum sounds. For now, here are a few thoughts. For really refined drum shaping, more envelopes can be helpful. Given that you won't need LFOs, you can use those in one shot modes along with the cycling envelope (used as ADSR). You have some envelope parameters in both the cycling envelope to shape the envelope stages and you can use the LFO shaper to turn the one shots into nicely shaped envelopes. Between these sources you have 4 "envelopes" to work with. Drums tend to benefit from exponential decay, but most importantly: listen. Next, a drum sound is often made with a core amplitude shape, a filter motion, a pitch motion, and a transient sound. The transient can be shaped by using one (short) envelope to bring the second oscillator in (i.e have the volume of osc 2 at zero and modulated it up) for an initial click, or bang. In the oscillator sounds, you have quite some options. The noise oscillator has a lot of different timbres, which can help a lot, but the more traditional options in the VA oscillator can give you classic 808 kick and tom sounds. I'd experiment with the other oscillators too, for example using the comb filter as a pitched resonator, rather than as the transient. Velocity expression can be useful to add some variations, so consider using velocity to modulate the intensity of some of the other elements (e.g the transient gets louder with velocity) as well as regular amp EG and filter movement velocity sensitivety. Hopefully these are enough ideas to get you going. Keep in mind that this is a mono timbral synth, so you will likely be sampling these sounds (or using the soft synth version, layered). If you are sampling, be sure to grab enough variations to keep things interesting.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The Liven series can send and receive clock over midi, analogue sync, and analogue sync + audio (like pocket operators). This means it can follow the tempo of another device, or have another device follow it. Since the XFM has a four track sequencer, if you play 3 parts locally, you could sequence an external device using the 4th track (I have a video on the Liven, and sequencing external gear). In addition to (or instead of) this, you could use the sequencer on the external device and have the Liven send or receive sync to keep them in time. Midi is good for this as the devices can also send start/stop message, so they start simultaneously, vs you having to hit play. If you are using something without midi (e.g pocket operators), then you need to hit play to get it going, though you can hit play on the PO first, in the right sync mode, and it'll start when the Liven starts sending clock.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I'd say the Hydrasynth benefits from an extremely consistent interface. While it's not always the most "intuitive", I find you can make educated guesses without being too far off the mark, especially when you understand a few basics. Hopefully this video helps everyone get oriented enough to ignore the rest of the series and experiment, should they choose to do so. Thanks for your support!

Thanks for watching: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for watching: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. As with most things, the answer is: it depends; I'll tell you what it depends on. I'd describe the Hydrasynth as being optimized for deep sound design, and performance by creating patches with macro assignments in place. Where it lacks, is sounding a bit boring without more complex sound design in place; the filters aren't super interesting sounding to me; and the panel isn't ideal for designing sounds live on (which I like doing, as part of a performance). The Minifreak is optimized to be more immediate and fun to use, and generally more performative (especially the arp and sequencer). It also has far more panel controls, meaning it's easier to design sounds, live, on; I also like the smoothness of the filter, and how it interacts with the digital oscillators. Where it isn't so good, is when you need to go into the menu; the jump in UX is very marked when you move from the panel to the menu (the screen is also very small). Between the two, I find the Minifreak much more fun and immediate, and generally more enjoyable to use, in terms of how I like using hardware. Moreover, when I want deep sound design, I tend to go to software (The Hydrasynth Explorer is a great controller for Pigments by the way). In this sense, a Hydrasynth is a poor match for me, despite it being a great value proposition. Equally, the Minifreak (and inclusion of Minifreak V) is a much better match for my use case.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. A first comment is that "thick" sounding synths tend to sound that way because of the implicit processing of the signal due to things like lacking headroom, tuning instability and noise floor. These are things that you can add by sound design in cleaner/thinner synths, but you can't remove when it's implicit. In a real musical mix, you are typically needing to thin things out to get them to work together. This means that while "thick and full" is what you want when auditioning solo, these sounds often don't work so well in some mixes. While I wouldn't exactly call the Minifreak thin, I would say that it both leans into its digital character with many algorithms, and has a fairly clean/transparent signal path. Next, keep in mind that the Volca keys is quite a different synth, so one wouldn't expect things to translate 1:1. The Volca keys is a 3 oscillator synth with VCOs, and has an analogue VCA and delay, both of which tend to "compress" the signal quite a bit. It also has a 24db/Oct filter which is quite dirty, with strong resonance, without strong filter tracking. To get the same "weight" you therefore want 3 oscillators. I'd use the VA algorithm for both oscillators, detune them slightly, and animate the detune oscillator parameter on both (slightly) to simulate the VCO tuning instability. The filter, you can't really do anything about: it's a 12db/Oct clean/smooth filter, quite suitable for a polysynth which tracks; you might try and negatively modulate the cutoff from the keyboard in the mod matrix to reduce the filter tracking. The Minifreak also has an analogue VCA, but the digital enveloping in the oscillator section and headroom means it's very clean too. To simulate a bit of the dirty character of the volca keys, I'd probably use the distortion effect (which is also adding gain). Finally, I'd go with the multi compressor effect to add some more punch and fullness to the sound. What I hope this all conveys is: the volca keys has a particular sound, feature set and limited sound design options. This pushes it in a particular direction and makes certain sounds easiest to make. The Minifreak has less inherent "character", meaning you have to lean into sound design more to get exactly the character you are looking for.

This is an extremely comprehensive answer ! I will take the time to experiment ! Thank you so much ! :)

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The audio in being mono is one of two things; the oscillators are mono, so audio input used in the oscillator section can't be stereo. The signal path after the oscillators is an analogue filter and analogue VCA, output mixer, then effects (all mono input). It's possible that the audio input is physically stereo (and even sampled in stereo), which would mean there is a possibility that @ArturiaOfficial could add an "input mixer" effect, allowing you to bring the unprocessed external audio into the effects section (which could be helpful).

Thanks ! I actually started a topic on the official forum with this feature request. Who knows what happens, considering the amount of updates brought to the Microfreak ! Btw, I like this synth very much, but always have the feeling its sounds are lacking in terms of... I dunno, width ? Warmth ? Compared to my Zen Core Roland groovebox the difference is tremendous. It has a specific sonic signature. The Super Unison helps. Take care !

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I'm glad you like my t-shirt! As for the synth: I think it's a good one. I suspect you'll be impressed by what the sequencer and arp can do, once we get there. As always: thanks for your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I feel like this capacity to use oscillator 2 to process oscillator 1's output is a quite compelling feature. Interestingly, they are similar to the "mutants" offered by the Hydrasynth. The Minifreak doesn't quite have the flexibility the Hydrasynth does, in that area, but what's there is all very usable. In any case: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. While all these concepts have a mathematical foundation, their usefulness is in how they sound. For example, wave folding effectively amplifies the waveform (the gain is the amount of folding), but instead of clipping the signal when it reaches maximum amplitude, the signal is folded back on itself (as though reflected in a mirror) and continues in the opposite direction. This folding happens again every time it reaches maximum amplitude, or 0. You can imagine that the more times it's folded back on itself, the more higher harmonics are generated, while still retaining its fundamental tuning. In terms of how it sounds, it's similar to sync (resetting the waveform at a higher frequency than its fundamental pitch, while also resetting at the fundamental pitch). The key is always to listen, not just to know what it will sound like if you use it, but to add it to the "timbres in your imagination". Conveniently FM, sync and wave folding all add harmonics, so sometimes I think of them in reverse: imagine the maximum amount of wave folding you'll use was the original sound; turning down the amount of wave folding is like applying a (unique sounding) low pass filter. This lets you apply some of what you already know from subtractive synthesis to shaping sounds with these tools.

Thanks for your comment and for watching: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. While I don't have any big Hydrasynth videos planned, there is already a series I made with some more sound design you might like. The series is called "patch tennis" (playlist on my channel) and it takes the form of a "sound design game" comparing two synths. The first (and only) "match" is Hydrasynth vs Minifreak: hopefully you enjoy it. As for series on other synths; I have the inclination to lean more toward sound design focused series, without a particular attachment to one synth or other. In fact the "sound design here create" series reflects more of what I'd like to do: longer form sound design, with a goal, where you watch my whole process.

Fwiw, the Gaia 2 is another one I've been looking at. Is that better in that regard? Frankly, I'm pretty much a total noob but live sound design is something I'm very interested in. Like just kind of jamming in real time

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. To clarify, by live sound design, I mean designing sounds while playing, in a live performance context; I exploring sound design is your goal, but you don't care about live use, the Hydrasynth works reasonably. If you want polyphony around that price you only have a few options: Minifreak, Hydrasynth Explorer, Minilogue XD, Deepmind 6/12, Yamaha MX, Korg "mod trio", Cobalt8, Argon8, Roland JDXi, Microkorg. Of those, I'd say the Cobalt8, Argon8, Deepmind, Minilogue XD and Minifreak are more suitable for live sound design. They all offer different feature sets, but my "top two" would probably be the Cobalt8 and Minifreak.

So I replied on the other comment, but I didn't include Gaia as it's a bit more expensive. From my perspective, is biggest strength is the large number of panel controls, making it good for designing sounds live on. At the same time, it has quite a lot of depth, some of which is hidden in menus. I don't think it would be a bad choice for your use case. I'd say so a bit of a KZbin deep dive into the Gaia and the my to picks in the other reply and see which you could imagine yourself enjoying the most.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. One of the things I try and do, in sound design, is to use things early in the signal chain to get the sound I want. In this sense, having an "LFO based delay" is preferable to using the effect, for me. The reason is that it leaves the effect slot for adding further complexity where I need it. Have fun with your Minifreak!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. In as much as I can, I try and model a process for designing sounds. This process requires certain intellectual understanding to figure out what to change next, but most of the rest of it is done with your ears. I like to say: listen, think, change, repeat; as you've observed, it's surprising how many people skip the "think" part and just jump to changing things. I hope you find some useful elements in some of my other videos too. In any case: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I've tried my best to present both how I learn a synth (in the earlier episodes), and how I use that learning to design sounds (in the later episodes). My goal is to empower other synth enthusiasts to develop a robust and reliable ability to make the sounds they imagine, on any synth. In any case: I appreciate your support.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. Indeed, the cycling envelope can be an ADSR (with decay and release matched) envelope or an AHR style LFO (though unipolar, vs bipolar for LFOs) with or without retriggering. The LFOs can actually be used as a "one shot" meaning they can function similarly to envelopes; they default to bipolar, but the "LFO shaper" can be used to create a unipolar envelope (logically it's an MSEG). This means that between the LFOs and cycling envelope, you have quite a bit of flexibility for cyclic and non-cyclic modulation sources!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I'm glad you found the video interesting. I actually planned to make this series about a year ago (when it was probably a little more pertinent) but time proved too short: such is life when you have a toddler and an infant in the house :).

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I hope you have some fun designing sounds on the Hydrasynth: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for checking out the video: I really appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. In a way, I put this material out to collect my thoughts on a subject. Moreover, I've found that there is much to be gained by teaching, as it doesn't allow for vagueness in understanding. The other side of this, hopefully obviously, is I'm wish to make series that help everyone who's interested, get to a place of understanding on the topic to kickstart their own journey. Thanks for your input, and I really appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. As for balancing volume, especially for drum sounds, in this way you can patch lock the sounds, then parameter lock velocity (the knob above the record button) to get the volume matched. One other thought, is : are you listening through the headphone port? If you are trying to listen through your computer, make sure you are using a stereo breakout cable: if you run TRS stereo (like the line in), to a balanced mono interface input, it might seem very quiet without effects. I'm not actually on gearspace, but I do often mention the Liven XFM on Reddit. There was some conversation about me, and my series, on gearspace so I imagine that's where the confusion happens. In any case, my opinion on the Liven XFM is still the same. While it's not the best sounding FM synth (the effects especially, don't sound great), it's also not a bad sounding synth; most importantly, it gives you (via the FM overlay), a fairly efficient interface for creating FM sounds: nothing in its price range does this. Add to this the elektron style sequencer, patch morphing and filter+envelope per track, and you have something that's hard to beat for both learning true FM synthesis, and exploring FM sound design without really having to learn much at all (using the morphing).

@@ChalkWalkMusic Wow~ I really apprecite your reply. I will try to use parameter lock as you suggested. I am little confued that you mentioned about parameter locking velocity (the knob above the record butten) but I see the knob above the record butten is pattern level knob. Do you mean the velocity Knob,the one beside of that ptn level knob? Also could you expain me a little bit about how to use latch Knob? I couldn't find any information on the Manual.( Maybe you already expained in your episodes if so, could you let me know which episode ?) I very much like sound of FM synthsizers. Several years ago, I got a DX7 to learn to program FM sound but without patience and dedication I end up just downloding patchs from the web since there are so many available. About year ago, I got a XFM,hoping it is easier to learn FM synthesis but still not very successful. Haha~ I have found playing XFM very much fun just morphing preloaded sounds without really getting into FM sound editing. I kow it is just a excuse haha... Anyway, I will keep trying. Now,I am gonna go re-watch your XFM episodes about making a track from scratch.

@@sonicforest521 You are correct about the velocity knob: I looked up a picture of the XFM to confirm where the knob was and it turned out to be a picture of a pre-release model with different printing. As for your other question about "latch", I don't think there is a latch knob: do you mean the latch button? If so, latch indicates the behaviour of knobs, when the value of the parameter and the knob position are mismatched. When latch is enabled, any knob will not have any effect, until it is turned to a position matching the current parameter value; when latch is off, the parameter will jump to a value matching the knob position as soon as the knob turns. Latch mode is useful for live use, as the parameter won't instantaneously jump when you touch it; jump is often better for sound design as you can directly manipulate the knob to set the value you wish (vs having to sweep the control to find the current value, to then adjust it). As for learning FM synthesis on a DX7: the DX7, especially the mk1, is very awkward to learn FM synthesis on. This is because you have to page through a big list of parameters to find the one you wish to adjust, they adjust it with a fader. While this gives you access to every parameter, the use experience is very poor. The big benefit of the XFM, and the FM overlay, is you get knobs to directly set certain parameters for each operator, then a set of buttons to select other parameters directly. The result is a far quicker user experience, also meaning that you can experiment a little while retaining a feeling you understand the state of the synth. While this doesn't reduce the parameter count on the synth (though obviously it has 4 operators vs 6 on the DX7), it makes navigating much easier. The DX7 being algorithm based is another complicating factor. The algorithm defines the function of every operator up front. In contrast the XFM method of having a routing matrix, allows you to decide on the operator functions as you go. The latter is far more forgiving vs the DX7, where if you realize you picked the wrong algorithm part way through sound design, you effectively have to start again. The knowledge and intuition you gain on the XFM, could likely allow you to pick the correct algorithm on the DX7 and design a sound more effectively. This doesn't, however, make the user interface any more efficient, so the experience is likely just as frustrating as ever.

@@ChalkWalkMusic \ Yes,that was a latch butten not a Knob. I kind of understand your explanation. I guess I should actually use it to fully understand how the latch butten works. Yes,I have a DX7 MK1 with Grey-matter. Indeed It is very confusing. Usually my attension span does not last very long with it. However,your explanation about DX7 and XFM really inspires me to focus on to learn XFM sound editing mode first. By the way, the other day, I downloded XFM Analog Waveform Pack by Chris Lody from Sonicware to use XFM as a virtual analog synth.It is total of 50 patches from their website. It was so much fun to play with. Morphing the new patches sounds very nice. Again,thanks a million Chalk walk for taking time for such thorough explanations about all my qustions.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. On the whole, I'm not that enamoured with the sound of the Hydrasynth. I found the effects to be a little lack lustre and the filter models to feel a bit flat (my point of comparison at the time was the Opsix, which has really nicely modelled filters). Complex sound design is definitely a strength on the Hydrasynth side, but at the same time, I find myself constantly wishing it sounded more like Pigments or Zebra (which it makes an excellent controller for). Poly aftertouch is certainly a nice feature and can add a lot, but it seems to be gradually working its way back into the synth market, so my guess is, that won't be such a draw soon enough. The Minifreak definitely doesn't compete with the Hydrasynth on specs (far fewer LFOs and envelopes, a single filter, 2 oscillators and no "mutants": a big strength of the Hydrasynth) yet I find it is a case of having enough for a lot of uses. By this I mean: you can dial in sounds quickly and make tweaks fast, while also having enough depth to design more complex sounds (though I do wish it had an extra 2 LFOs and envelopes with extra rows in the mod matrix). That's not to say it's ideal for maximum sound design scope, but between the second oscillator's ability to modulate the first, the great sounding effects and the very accessible mod matrix, you have something that's quite compelling. This is all without mentioning the arp and sequencer, which I'd say are exceptional. All in all, the Hydrasynth Explorer and Minifreak aren't best suited for the same people, I'd say. The Minifreak suits someone who wants something more performance focused and immediate; the Hydrasynth is for someone who wants to dive deep into designing sounds. The world (and my setup) definitely has space for both to coexist.

Hi ! Bought a used Hydra last year and the parcel got lost (!!!). That was a sign : I then got a used Minifreak instead, ahah ! Regarding the sound, I second you and ChalkWalk.... When I first listened to the demos I was very impressed by the Hydra. But now the more I listen to them, the more I feel the sound... Kinda flat indeed. Strange. A bit like when I listen to the Blofeld with the built-in reverb. Why did my opinion change over the time ?? I heard similar testimonies about the Minifreak. I remember listening to the review of Stimming who was underwhelmed by the Minifreak sound. It's true it doesn't sound as "full" as, for instance, a Roland Zen Core instrument. But it has a different scope, right ? Anyway. All of those are great in their own way ;) What counts is what we do with them, FOCUS ! ;)

Regarding Aftertouch... I was extremely thrilled by it, at first. But actually I personally find it pretty difficult to measure / control on a keyboard of this size. I am probably not a good enough player. Maybe with training, curve tweaking, relevant patches... Already quite some work tweaking the sounds, macros, and playing proper music :)

@@Mahenounet I think aftertouch is a pretty tricky subject. First there is the keyboard and synth side to it: how much travel does it have; how much force is required to activate, and how deep into the key do you have to press before it triggers. These then translate to the control aspect: how does the force curve you apply translate to aftertouch message values. Finally is the question of how those values get applied to the voices. Most keyboards have a very distinct aftertouch region below the "bottom out" of the key, which is the case for the Hydrasynth. Similar to a lot of other aftertouch keybeds, it takes a reasonable amount of force to activate. In this sense, aftertouch is entirely distinct from velocity, or rather controlled separately. From a force curve perspective, I think you can learn to use any of the curves, but in my experience there was always one that felt most natural from day one. For me, the purpose of the curve is the same as the purpose of a velocity curve on a keyboard: for my sense of light, medium and hard pressure to map linearly into the value space. From a sound perspective, I find that it's very easy to go overboard with poly aftertouch, resulting in a sound that is overly sensitive to the additional pressure. Similarly, it's important to have the sound react in a way that feels intuitive to the player, which is very dependent on the type of sound. As an example, "keys" type of sound you want a very different response to a pad sound. This also leads in to the final aspect: how you play poly aftertouch physically. In practise, it's not easy to independently control the pressure applied by each finger. A lot of the force can end up coming from the wrist, which is common, and your 4th and 5th finger share a tendon; this means that it's not just a technique aspect, but also a physical one. This means that while you can pick out voices in turn using poly aftertouch, it's not that easy to do such modulation across all your fingers at once, especially when the amount of force required to activate the pressure dimension is high (this is where the osmose and new polybrute have an advantage). Given the potential subtlety of motion, you can also find that different extents of poly aftertouch control are available to you depending on what notes you are playing and the type of sound. The main (mechanical) ways I use poly aftertouch are: one hand playing monophonically with aftertouch, the other playing without; both hands playing a chord with pressure applied to one or other as a "block"; pressure applied to one hand or other; biasing the weight towards the left or right side of the hand accentuating the upper or lower voice in that hand; biasing the weight across the entire pair of hands, accentuating the higher or lower voices of the whole chord. You'll note that the more expressive of these (the last two) are only really usable when holding a two handed chord for an extended period of time. In other words, they work best when used with pad sounds. Secondly, I find that for many sounds, having velocity and aftertouch do (significantly) different things makes it even harder; in reality I often have them be functionally very similar, or I just skip out on the velocity aspect entirely and rely solely on aftertouch. TL;DR: If you set your expectations correctly, and choose the right use cases, and design your sounds with that in mind, poly aftertouch can be approachable and quite compelling.

@@Mahenounet I definitely agree that is always tempting to focus on "the core sound" of a synth too much. There are a lot of synths out there who are sold primarily on their core sound, and always feel great to program and play. At the same time, we can forget that the outcome (in music) is often 50% composition, 20% sound design, 15% mix, 10% mastering and 5% core sound of the instrument. That's to say you usually have much more to gain by refining your composition vs replacing your synth.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I've enjoyed the Minifreak a lot: I'm sure you'll have fun with it. Hopefully you'll find the series helpful as you learn!

Thanks for the comment, and for watching. I'm glad you've found some of my series helpful. I have always been of the belief, that everyone can learn any of these things, if it's presented in a way that they can connect with. Hopefully this series will do that, for you and the Minifreak.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I'm happy for you: a Hydrasynth is a pretty great prize! Hopefully the series will give you what you need to really dig into the synth and get the best from it. Learning synthesis and sound design is a fun journey, so enjoy the ride!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The Minifreak is definitely a fun synth with a lot to offer. I hope I manage to convey that throughout, and you enjoy the series.

Thanks, good to hear from you! Hopefully people will find this series useful. It was quite fun to make, especially using the shaper LFO more: the Minifreak really is an interesting platform for sound design.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. In a sense, it's the opposite of being dead. Most of my early videos were recorded during paternity leave with my first son (now over 2), which I split in two: when he was just born and when he was nearly 1. Well these videos have been recorded in some time I found on paternity leave for my second son, who's now 3 months old! So not dead, but busy, in a good way!

​@@ChalkWalkMusic what a coincidence: i watched your videos and subscribed to decide for the Minifreak over the Hydrasynth, just a couple days ago the Minifreak was delivered to me, and now i got the notification for this 😅

@@joeSeggiola Ah, good timing then I suppose: I hope you find the series helpful.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. One of my guiding principles in sound design is to try and get the best (meaning the closest to what I am aiming for) sound I can with as few elements (ideally as early in the synthesis path as possible) as I can. I find making changes "underneath" what's there is much harder than adding on, so this is mostly to make it easier to hear, and reason about, the change. In this regard I leave myself space to do more in an intuitive manner. With the dual filters on the Hydrasynth, you get a lot of interesting possibilities, especially with resonance.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I feel like the Hydrasynth Explorer was close to being an absolute must have, at the price, but it fell short in a few areas. I'm hoping they are working on a successor that improves in those areas (core sound quality with simple patches, live sound design capability and perhaps even more expressive potential in the keyboard). What I imagine is the Hydrasynth sectional interface paradigm, with more dedicated controls, a sound quality and features like Pigments (or zebra), a keybed like the Osmose, and perhaps a secondary expressive controller like the Touche. Maintain the build quality, and bring it to market for under $2000 (with 49 or 61 keys) and I think you'd have a proposition that was hard to beat.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I hope you enjoy the learning process, find the videos helpful, and get a lot of joy out of the Hydrasynth. In any case: I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I do indeed have a Minifreak, and definitely have the inclination to do a "learn with me" series on it. The limiting factor is really just time; I don't necessarily spend that much time in making episodes vs others making KZbin content, but finding a solid hour to get an episode recorded, proves surprisingly difficult.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I made the series, mostly, as I found a lot of music theory material to be quite dry, or full of "special tricks". I spent a long time trying to figure things out, and to both understand why things work, and what worked for me. Hopefully this helps join the dots between knowing theory, in theory, and actually playing. In any case: I really appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. It wasn't intended to be, but it was close: good ear. In any case, I'm glad you enjoyed the series.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. I'm glad you liked the presentation; I try my best to be precise and get to the point. I'm happy that that comes across; I really appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. As for where I learned about other synthesis methods, I couldn't say, precisely; I've just picked them up through the years by a combination of reading and structured experimentation. I am not a professional musician, though I've done some paid work, live performances and worked with some professional musicians in a production and sound design capacity. More than anything, I'm someone who likes to learn, and to share. I appreciate your support!

Thanks for watching, and I appreciate your support!

Thanks for watching: I appreciate your support.

Thanks for watching: I really appreciate your support!

Thanks for watching, and I appreciate your support!

Thanks for your comment, and for watching. The assignable destinations (the right most 3 columns of the mod matrix) can be assigned to either one of the knobs of the panel, or one of the intersections on the mod matrix. The former is achieved by pressing and holding the destination assignment button and turning a panel control; the latter is achieved holding the destination assignment button and turning the matrix encoder to select which mod slot you want to modulate the intensity of. In this case the destination is the amount of cycling envelope sent to the timbre of the oscillator. This means that that routing is applied based on the intensity entered in the cycling envelope -> timbre mod matrix slot, then the intensity gets added to by the source targeting that assignable destination (i.e velocity). This means that you are not increasing the timbre as you play harder, but rather increasing how much the cycling envelope affects the timbre. This type of velocity sensitivity is characteristic of classic FM sounds.

@@ChalkWalkMusic Great to know, thanks for the detailed response.

Thanks for your comment, and for watching; I hope you find the series useful to kickstart your sound design on the synth!