Recreating synth sounds - any tips on ear training?

[EBS_freak]

Has anybody got any tips on how to recreate synth sounds, typically in Logic. I'm looking to train my ear and am looking for any useful tips/advice/tutorial which would aid my progress. At the moment, my methods seems to revolve around fluke and trial and error. I'm sure I can be more pragmatic about my approach - any recommendations greatly appreciated.

[BigRedX]

TBH These days unless you know exactly which synth(s) is responsible for creating the sounds you are pretty much on to a loosing battle. Back in the days when there were only subtractive analogue synths, it was fairly easy provided that your synth had roughly the same features as the one used to create the sound you were after.

However there are now a multitude of synthesis methods, coupled with the fact that most electronic sounds on recordings will probably be several instruments layered up and maybe combined with samples - either preset in ROMplers or those made by the artists themselves, it's almost impossible to know where to begin.

[EBS_freak]

Hmm... there's loads of guys on some forums that I am on who have been pretty damn good at nailing some famous synth sounds on EXS24. I can get with where you are coming from though.

[BassTractor]

As a consequence of what BRX says, and I fully concur with it, you might be most happy with continuing the fluke and trial and error approach, but slightly differently: not for listening to a sound first and then trying to recreate it, but for taking one type of synth engine at a time and seeing what landscapes of sounds it tends to lead you to, and why/how.

It all depends on your knowledge level too, as well as on how much time you want to set aside.
From your OP, I can't guess what you should go for, but if you're a synth newbie you could do worse than by starting with a tiny subtractive synth with fixed architecture, and putting it through its paces. These can be had for free.

Once one has a good overview over what the different modules of the synth do, one could try a real modular subtractive, as in one without fixed architecture, before diving into younger methods of synthesis.
I'd avoid FM engines. I love them, mind, and they [b]can[/b] do what the Interwebz tend to claim they can't, but they do require a lot of dedication (time as well as a structural approach).
Some more modern synthesis methods and combinations are far more effective tools for F&T&E.

Oh, and don't forget external processing, if only for comparing. External processing often is at the core of what makes the final sound in a record attractive. For starters, I always keep a delay and a reverb handy.

Also, sounds you hear on records also sometimes or often have taken days of tweaking and layering as BRX already indicated (my own record is eight work days for eight layers in a complicated patch (after which I said "never again!", and I have kept my word)), so replicating those is not a matter of five minutes with a tiny subtractive synth, though I do admit the whole thing takes considerably less time than becoming a good bass player.

[EBS_freak]

Hi BassTractor - what you suggest is pretty much where I'm at. I've got very close to some synth sounds and then there's times where I can never seem to even get in the same ball park. But yeah, I've spent days (even weeks) as opposed to hours to tweaking the synth sounds. In fact, I've already set tonight (and probably way into the early hours) aside for another tinkering session.

I wouldn't say I'm a novice in terms of knowing what synths do... but what I am aware of, is that there are lots of guys better than I am at hearing a sound and being able to say something like, I'm hearing these particular wave forms, and this number of LFOs etc... or say, yeah, thats 3 stacked synth sounds. I guess that's where I want to train my ear to be better at recognising what I am hearing. Not saying I'm going to be a savant or anything - but would like to be better at it.

As you say, it may be best just to continue as I am and hoping that the skill develops naturally over time. If I can get this skill up to the level where I'm already at with the rest of mixing in logic, I'd be happy - I just feel that this is the bit which is dragging for me. For originals it's not so bad... but when trying to recreate... that's where I'm not so happy with my performance.

As for delays - defo, I've figured that a lot of famous synth sounds - especially stuff from the 80s - is reliant on them. In fact, I've kinda switched from being a reverb guy to a delay guy as a consequence.

[xgsjx]

I agree with those above, but if you know what synth you're trying to replicate, then you'll find plenty of VST versions of most hardware synths.

Open a simple synth in Logic (maybe the ES2 or the Retrosynth) & have just the one oscillator open. Put the resonance right down & the cutoff right up, put the sustain up full on all parts & play about with the waveforms. You'll find that the waveforms usually go from Sine to Triangle to Saw & then Square (often followed by Pulse).
Now reduce the cutoff & increase the resonance & have a play about with the ADSR for the filter.
Spend a little time with the one synth & find out how it works.
With the more complex ones like Alchemy, it becomes a bit more tricky though.

[ambient]

I tend to use Google, if I'm after a specific sound that I've heard on a recording.

What sound are you after ?

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='ambient' timestamp='1453128833' post='2956615']
I tend to use Google, if I'm after a specific sound that I've heard on a recording.

What sound are you after ?
[/quote]

I'm currently trying to cop the synth sounds in Starlight - Supermen Lovers. The opening synth sound (it's stacked with some sort of string pad (you can hear the LFO quite clearly), some sort of organ-esque vibe thing and something else that I haven't got anywhere near yet. I've got an approximation of but it's sounding cheesy.

The break down bit seems to have a kind of oboe-esque thing going on (I'm sure that sound is off some cheap casio from my youth)... which I'm approaching. And the clav type sound I got nailed.

[BassTractor]

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1453124134' post='2956532']
it may be best just to continue as I am and hoping that the skill develops naturally over time.
[/quote]

Yeah, that would be my guess for now. These guys who are better at it have surely spent the time getting to know all the "landscapes", as well as (important!) the different peculiarities and artefacts.
When I hear people discuss how a sound is made, they'll often narrow it down using the sound's artefacts. That demands experience, I'd think.

In general and roughly speaking, I think it's safe to say that the older the original sound, the easier it will be to replicate. New sounds would generally require the same type of hardware or software, if not the exact same.
BTW, tools like Fourier analysis, spectrum analysers and oscilloscopes come in handy as well in many cases.

.

Stuff I was thinking of whilst preparing my posts, and I don't mean to unjustly treat you as a beginner - I just don't know what you know:

- FM-synthesis performed on a modular subtractive is a wholly different ballgame than the same settings (using the term loosely here) in a digital FM synth. One either needs to understand well-written descriptions of the differences in sound (seems near impossible to me) or one needs the raw experience.

- A wavetable waveform morphing into another wavetable waveform whilst being filtered through one of a gazillion different comb filters seems near impossible to recreate to me, unless you've heard exactly these combinations and know which synth can do it.

- Even the synth in Van Halen's "Jump", a simple subtractive patch you replicate in minutes if you have an Oberheim, cannot be done on a Polymoog or a Prophet 5 (which would probably come closer), and even a synth plugin with good virtual analogue capacities would need to have the right type of filter to pull it off. So just listening to the sound is not enough - far from it.


All the best with this!
Have fun!

Edited January 19, 2016 by BassTractor

[EBS_freak]

[quote name='BassTractor' timestamp='1453157600' post='2957046']
Yeah, that would be my guess for now. These guys who are better at it have surely spent the time getting to know all the "landscapes", as well as (important!) the different peculiarities and artefacts.
When I hear people discuss how a sound is made, they'll often narrow it down using the sound's artefacts. That demands experience, I'd think.

In general and roughly speaking, I think it's safe to say that the older the original sound, the easier it will be to replicate. New sounds would generally require the same type of hardware or software, if not the exact same.
BTW, tools like Fourier analysis, spectrum analysers and oscilloscopes come in handy as well in many cases.

.

Stuff I was thinking of whilst preparing my posts, and I don't mean to unjustly treat you as a beginner - I just don't know what you know:

- FM-synthesis performed on a modular subtractive is a wholly different ballgame than the same settings (using the term loosely here) in a digital FM synth. One either needs to understand well-written descriptions of the differences in sound (seems near impossible to me) or one needs the raw experience.

- A wavetable waveform morphing into another wavetable waveform whilst being filtered through one of a gazillion different comb filters seems near impossible to recreate to me, unless you've heard exactly these combinations and know which synth can do it.

- Even the synth in Van Halen's "Jump", a simple subtractive patch you replicate in minutes if you have an Oberheim, cannot be done on a Polymoog or a Prophet 5 (which would probably come closer), and even a synth plugin with good virtual analogue capacities would need to have the right type of filter to pull it off. So just listening to the sound is not enough - far from it.


All the best with this!
Have fun!
[/quote]

Hey - I wouldn't necessarily say I'm a beginner but I am far from competent compared to others out there!

At the moment, my method is basically identifying as much of the core component sounds as I can - sine is pretty easy and I'm getting better at square and saw tooth identification and then working from there. With the two sounds side by side, I can usually hear and get pretty close, especially now as I'm getting a lot more savvy with the detuning and fine tuning options on those waveforms - from there, it then goes into the realm of trial and error... playing with attack, release etc... and the LFOs themselves.

It sounds to me that experience is the key player here - guess I'll just keep plugging away. I had hoped that there was some sort of more pragmatic approach, but like anything, the more your practice, the better you'll get!

EDIT : Forgot to say, yes, have long been into applying chorus, flange, delays etc to the resulting synth sounds... and even multi layering with different EQs, rates of modulation etc. As implied from others, trying to unpick all of this can be a nightmare... especially when you hear a phaser effect and mistake it's phase rate as the synth sound LFO!

Edited January 19, 2016 by EBS_freak