That made my day--thank you for that!

It isn't just about a single primary waveform that is used to construct the sound. There is far more to it than that. Voltage controlled filters, voltage controlled oscillators, AM and FM of the sound using oscillators. Even the types of filters, the components used, the design of the filters all have an effect. It's also about the effects that can be added to the sound. And that's just the analog synths. The 1980's saw a huge proliferation of synths from different manufacturers. And they don't all sound the same .

@@deang5622 There isn't far more it it. It's very little more to it. The main function of a synthesizer is the waveform generation. And the main synthesizer waveforms are the ones that electronic circuits are good in creating, namely the square, sawtooth, triangle, sine, and white noise. Yes, envelopes have a major impact on the sound overall playability. The filter isn't much different from EQ on the mixer. The effects processing is not something to judge a synthesizer by. Neither the DX7, nor the Minimoog have any FX and they both very good synthesizers. Effects can easily be added by outboard gear. And yes, the late '80s was a proliferation of sample playback, which finally made synthesizers sound like acoustic instruments. To me, the biggest breakthrough though was physical modeling of drivers and resonators, like in the Yamaha VL1/VP1. But for some reason or another, we went back to the square/sawthooth/triangle/sine/white noise with the Clavia Nord Lead, and we never looked back since, which is quite a disappointment to me, because all synthesizers started to sound exactly the same since then.

@@dvamateur Synths most definitely do not all sound the same. Your oversimplified argument completely ignores important elements like wavetable oscillators, FM (which emulated acoustic sounds alongside the sampling revolution in the early 80s), driving gain in the path before, during and after filtering, differences in filter types well beyond different low-pass designs, AM, ring modulation, etc etc etc. Just the two examples of the Mini and DX7 that you listed couldn't be further apart in sound, as one is subtractive and the other is digital FM.

You seem very knowledgable, yet you have missed the entire point of my tutorial, which is to learn the BASICS of synthesis. You obviously have learned them, so I don't see why you feel the need to argue. For my example, I used a Minimoog; it could have been an ARP 2600, or the free Oberheim SEM that Cherry Audio offers. It doesn't matter if you drive a Chevy or a Ford, the question is will they get you to the grocery store? The point of the tutorial is that if one learns the BASICS of subtractive synthesis, they will be less dependent on presets, and maybe more comfortable creating their very own sounds, which is something I enjoy.

@@billwolfer4020 I completely agree with your statement. In my opinion, an accomplished synthesist and sound designer is the one who can arrive with exact same sound using different synthesis methods, not just subtractive.

I felt like I had a head start learning to program the DX-7 because I knew how to use envelope generators. Those complex six stage EGs are your filters in FM! That walk in the park helps you run later. Besides, this video is hardly for people who are programming advanced FM synths. It's a way to get started with the concepts of basic subtractive synthesis.

Well, with 6-operator FM synthesizer like the original DX7/DX7II, you first have to understand how to obtain basic waveforms, like square waveform and sawtooth waveform. The operator feedback is one way to tune in those waveforms. And then comes the harmonic spectrum variation. And you can really make a DX7 sound like an Oberheim if you know what you're doing.

@@dvamateur Yeah, back in the day, I made some very convincing Minimoog bass patches for the DX-7. Later, I got a TX816, and started designing soounds that would use three modules to make one instrument. I had an acoustic bass patch that used three modules--one of them would just be doing attack transients. FM is very cool.

@@billwolfer4020 Of course FM is very cool. It's just a different way of thinking, by building harmonics from ground up from sine wave, as opposed to collapsing the waveforms into a sine wave using a filter in subtractive synthesis. Talking about FM and subtractive synthesis, let's not forget about the additive synthesis. According to Fourier theorem, it should be possible to obtain any waveform using a sum of sine waves. But of course having an envelope control over every harmonic can be overwhelming. So, thanks to grouping the harmonics into blocks for envelope control, the synthesizer designers gave us the Kawai K5. Personally, I'd be interested in seeing more additive synthesizers on the market.

Randy Jackson played keyboards, too. I had a Rhodes with a Minimoog on top of it on my left, a Yamaha CP-70 electric piano with a Prophet 5 on top of that, and on my right, I had a Yamaha CS80.

@@billwolfer4020 Thanks man!

I remember those.

It's a wee bit of a scouse accent, innit? Ha, what do I know?

+1. THIS!

Thanks! You know what? I've got a tutorial on programming synths coming up in a minute. Thanks for the kind words--comments like these give me ideas for videos!

I totally agree. I imagine the estate will get around to it eventually. At least I hope so.

yeah layers and pitch wheel

Bingo! You found the Easter Egg!