Just got back from Knobcon today. Marc Doty is still trying to help synthesists understand this concept and in the last session of the show, he did his best to clarify this. In particular, he is concerned about the lack of a standard vocabulary and much of the confusion regarding polyphony stems from the fact that many of the terms (and specifically the inconsistent use of paraphonic) come from manufacturers who (I know this is hard to believe) make up their naming conventions based on marketing. Before I continue, please take the following in the spirit it is intended. I am NOT trying to be "that guy" who is telling people that they're wrong. I am not a troll. I am not trying to appear important or belittle anyone else. @The Midlife Synthesist - You are trying to educate others and make a complicated subject more clear and I am simply joining in on your voice to help clarify. I'd love to talk about this further and I have a background of experience that I'd like to think gives me some credibility, but hopefully you'll recognize the truth in the words I'm about to share. Again - read this in the tone of a friendly collaborator and someone who wants to help. Having said that, I'm going to note some facts below. These facts - not opinions. They are things that are NOT open to interpretation. For example, if you choose to walk by a bear wearing a necklace made of raw meat, you are endangering yourself. You can choose to believe something else, but that opinion will not protect you if that bear is hungry. That is a fact. I want to be clear. Some things are open to opinion and are subjective. Things I've labeled as facts are just that - facts. Fact #1: Polyphony is the number of separate notes you can control with the keys. Technically 1 note is monophonic; two notes is duophonic; three or more notes is polyphonic. In your example when you have three oscillators tuned to a triad, you hear three notes, but you are not controlling them independently. That is not a polyphonic experience because you are only using one key to trigger three notes and you cannot change the relationship between those notes by pressing keys - it's built into the program. (BTW - That was an excellent example that you chose to show. Kudos!) Fact #2: Articulation and Polyphonic count are not related. (This is a HUGE misconception!) See Fact #1 - Polyphony just means being able to play three or more different controllable notes simultaneously. Full articulation means that every note you hit has its own filter envelope and amp envelope. You can have an instrument that has 4-note polyphony with an amp envelope for each but they all share a single filter envelope. That is a polyphonic synth. In spite of what the manufacturer says, it is NOT a paraphonic synth. Paraphonic has a specific definition (See Fact #4 below). Fact #3: Many people falsely assume that each voice in a polyphonic instrument should be fully articulated. This is not true. See Fact #1 - Polyphony just means being able to play three or more different controllable notes simultaneously. Since the introduction of the Yamaha DX7 and the flood of digital instruments that followed which had 8-voices, 16-voices, and some up and over 256 voices, synthesists around the world began to expect that each key pressed would create a fully-articulated voice. That became the default. When a new generation of analog instruments were rolled out, for cost and/or creative reasons, full articulation wasn't always available (e.g., Korg Volca Keys). The industry recognized that people were confused and began to complain so they wanted to identify that those instruments were different to govern expectations. Since the concept of polyphony had become somewhat synonymous with fully-articulated polyphony, manufacturers felt they needed to come up with a label to warn people. They dipped into the past and chose a old term that seemed to fit. Technically, it doesn't. See Fact #4. Fact #4: Many people falsely assume that any multi-note instrument which is not fully-articulated is paraphonic. This is not true. Paraphonic means that all voices share a SINGLE amp envelope AND a SINGLE filter envelope. There are many instruments that have multiple amp envelopes (one for each note) but still share a single filter envelope. This is a hybrid. Yes, that instrument is not fully-articulated. However, that does not mean that it is automatically paraphonic. Marketing departments for synth companies use the term "paraphonic" to warn players that each independently-triggered note is not fully articulated, but that is technically incorrect unless the instrument only uses a single amp envelope and single filter envelope for all notes triggered. Examples of such hybrid instruments include the Arturia MatrixBrute and MicroFreak. Both of which have a "paraphonic mode" that is not paraphonic. Both instruments have independent amp envelopes for each note. The challenge we face is that this is a very confusing subject and most of us haven't taken electronic music courses in higher education. Most of us have learned what we know from personal experience, from watching UA-cam videos, and from what friends and colleagues have told us over the years. The water is muddied even further when manufacturers cannot consistently agree on what these definitions are and they fall back on marketing departments and legal teams in order to govern expectations and avoid lawsuits. Having said all of this, society uses language as a living expression to understand and define concepts within a culture. In this role, language evolves. But to be useful and effective, language needs to be based on shared understanding and agreement. Otherwise it won't make sense and will have little value. For example, there was a time when the term "bad" only had a negative connotation. However, as part of a counter-culture movement, being labelled as "bad" by an authority figure became a symbol of pride. Therefore, in the right context, calling something "bad" became a compliment and a badge of honor. Meaning can evolve. The word "bitch" went from a specific description of a female dog used for breeding purposes to a derogatory term for a woman. Now, when used between friends, it can be a term of endearment. Language evolves as long as there is shared meaning and understanding. In this context, there is a specific form of language called "jargon." This is dedicated terminology used by a particular group or technical field to describe specific equipment, tools, or concepts. Words like "polyphonic" and "paraphonic" are part of our jargon and should, therefore, have a consistent shared meaning. When we rely on marketing teams for manufacturers to define the meaning of our jargon, the tail is wagging the dog. They should be adhering to our shared understanding of the concept. Unfortunately, we don't have a single academic source or a unifying scholarly body to help reinforce that rule of law. However, that doesn't mean that it's "up for grabs." I hope that this helps to clarify a few things and can serve as a springboard for further conversation. I thank you for your efforts to try to share what you know with others. It is all of our responsibility to shine what light we have in the darkness to help illuminate the truth for all. Knowledge is not meant to be wielded as a tool of oppression. Instead, it is a gift to be shared so that we all can benefit from it universally. Peace.
Hi Ted! Thank you so much for taking the time to write this! I agree fully that a big reason that the terminology gets blurred is because instead of academics and developers, the language is being promoted by marketing teams and we the users get caught in the middle. I researched and asked around alot before making this video and as I said in it, the language gets a bit hazy depending on who you ask so I am very grateful for such a thorough explanation on your part. My intention is to help beginners have a better starting point and this sheds more light on a very murky subject. I hope people take the time to read this. All the best🤟🏻
@@MidlifeSynthesist Thanks for taking the time to read my post and for responding so respectfully. Again, I truly appreciate your attempt to clarify things and diffuse the haze that is cast over many of these concepts within our field. As I was typing this, I was afraid that it may have been met with some resistance due to the sheer size of the comment itself. Normally, when one sees a comment of this size, it's the result of someone who was triggered and has gone on a rant. I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt. I hope that we all can continue to generate a shared understanding and eventually galvanize our jargon to the point where everyone is in agreement and our language clarifies instead of confuses. Peace.
@@tedstahl3794 @Ted Stahl Hey Ted, since I have had this discussion with Marc (whom I respect alot) a bunch of times I have just to chime in. "These facts - not opinions. They are things that are NOT open to interpretation." What is a fact is that there are multiple correct definitions of what polyphony means. They are however at odds with one another and they do not have the same technical accuracy or convenience. And one is free to champion whatever definitions one thinks is best. Marc champions definitions that many do not agree with (personally I see the academic beauty in his vocabulary but I also see why people do not care for it). What is the best definition however can not be defined objectively, as best is a moral statement and not a description of the world as such. Therefor it's problematic to say that something is - a fact - when you are talking definitions. Since there clearly are multiple definitions. Now, if you believe that the technically most accurate usage of a word is best, then that is totally fair. It is not however the only argument about what makes a definition good. Simplicity, as in ease of use, could be another. You even note this yourself: many brands avoid calling synths with limited articulation polyphonic (Matrixbrute comes to mind) because they do not want to confuse their customers. A consequence for example of Marcs preferred way of using the words are that we'd have to distinguish between polyphony with limited articulation and true polyphonic. And we could off course do this. Maybe we will! Maybe Marc is succesful in changing the hearts and minds of people. But it would also mean a more complicated vocabulary to keep track off. Today polyphony means, generally, true polyphony and paraphonic means limited articulation. And too many people that are very functional descriptions of what the synths are capable of. So while I see the academic beauty in what Marc does it is far from the only perspective on this.
@@BoBeats Thank you for chiming in, good sir! This is exactly what we should be doing because it's only through discussion, analysis, and debate that we can shine a light on these opinions and come to a consensus about our definitions to create a shared meaning. My degrees are in English and Communication. I have spent my academic career studying language and how we shape meaning through our words. One of my mentors at my university was Walter J. Ong who is famous for articulating the philosophical impact of language and how it shapes our perception and, therefore, our shared reality. In particular, he focused on our transition from an oral culture to a written culture. If he was alive today, I'm sure that he would be digging deeper into the hypertextual/hypermediated culture we now have have and how that has further democratized the process of shared meaning. The big question we have though regarding the definition of polyphony and paraphony is that these are "jargon" terms. They are specific terms meant to clarify (not obscure) meaning. They are not part of a common vocabulary. You don't use these words when you walk into a hardware store or when striking up a conversation at a gas station. They pertain to our discipline as electronic musicians and synthesists. The foundations of our field are not based on opinion. We don't have conversations where some people think that when you say "square wave" that it can mean either a square or a sine. Should we be free to champion that labeling a sine wave as a square wave is acceptable? Why add that confusion? Words and their definitions are meant to clarify - not to confuse. The real confusion I believe stems from what I said in my original post. In the mid '80s we started seeing the growth of polyphonic instruments and due to the majority of those being digital, it was possible to maintain full articulation for each voice. Because that was the standard, people began to equate "fully-articulated polyphony" with "polyphony." The majority of the people who are resisting Marc's academic observation don't have a personal history with synthesis that predates this transition in synthesis in the '80s. My first experience with a synth was with a school-owned Moog modular in 1974. My conversations and obsession with synthesis began to take hold by 1980. As our discipline began to grow and colleges and universities began offering the option for an electronic music curriculum, the understanding of the definition of these words was critical to our study and discourse. In that regard, if we were to say that "fully-articulated polyphony" and "polyphony" are the same thing, we'd get that answer marked wrong on our test. Now, as I also said in my original post, "language evolves." Yet, in order for meanings to change, there has to be a sense of shared agreement. When you're dealing with jargon in a specific discipline, this is a serious issue. Polyphony measures something specific. Can you imagine electricians and physicists having a different interpretation of what a volt is?!?! That would not only be confusing, but it could be dangerous. Honestly, I don't have a problem with us all redefining what these words mean. WE choose our language and it is OUR tool and serves OUR purposes. We are not beholden to it. It is beholden to us. However, I think it is problematic to have specific jargon terms that are meant to document specific measurements within our discipline, yet we cannot agree on their definitions. We've already seen problems stem from this. There were many people who were frustrated when they bought the Volca Keys that stated it had 3-note polyphony. (It does. But it isn't fully-articulated polyphony.) So many people were used to fully-articulated polyphony that they didn't even understand the concept of a single shared envelope for the filter and/or the amp. This was unnecessary with digital instruments. However, when reintroducing analog, it became a serious cost differential. That right there is why it's important to understand the definition of a term. The same thing happened with Behringer's Poly D. Behringer even cited Marc in order to clarify. Our real challenge here is that only a small percentage of our community has been involved with synthesis for over 40 years to have hands-on experience with these changes. In addition, an equally small percentage of our community has taken higher education courses or read published academic books about the evolution of synthesis. The majority of our community loves making music and has been self-taught. There's nothing wrong with that, but that means that their understanding of the instruments is based on what colleagues tell them and what they get from their sales person or what the manufacturers describe in their ads. We used to have printed manuals that accompanied our instruments that provided a plethora of education. These days, we might get a PDF and a single page "quick start guide." To summarize: 1) I welcome a discussion about these terms. 2) They originally had a single specific meaning (that's why I made my statement of facts). 3) People are confused because assumptions were made when technology evolved and they had no historical context. (No harm no foul, but that is why people assume polyphony is fully articulated). 4) We should come to a shared agreement what these words mean, even if it's different from the original meaning. The important part is that we all agree on the meaning so we have common ground for discussion. 5) Some things make sense to be subjective. Analog vs Digital - people have their own opinions and that's fine. I hope that all makes sense. I'm not trying to be argumentative. What I want is for us to be on the same side. I'm willing to witness the evolution of a term, but its meaning should evolve because we want it to do so. Then, everyone can use it the right way. Peace.
Great video dude 😊 Pretty much the exact debate/question/misunderstanding/confusion I’ve been having in my head until I watched your Pro 3 video from before hahaha! Great explanation too, I wasn’t really sure about the whole paraphonic thing ✌🏻
11:10 this is an important point. When I bought the Reface YC, all of the electric organ patches on my DXs and ROMplers were instantly redundant. Manipulating the "drawbars" while I play is a fundamental part of the organ sound I want to hear.
Excellent informative video. Wish I had this knowledge 5 years ago when I started my synth journey. No idea how regular folks could have learned about this stuff back in the classic synth period (70's early 80's) without media like this - not to mention costs back then compared to now. I grew up in the 70's 80's and always loved the sounds but had no idea about the gear that made them. Now that I am (midlife) older and have the ability to aquire some of the reasonable priced gear I find it to be an amazing, beautiful, frustrating, satisfying, (money draining) experience. Love it!
Thank you so much for watching! I was trying to find more videos like this when I realized there seems to be a lack of videos on the very basics, so I think I might make a few more just for fun and to the info out there for any who might need it❤️ see you soon! Cheers!
@@MidlifeSynthesist suggest talking about how a lot of mono synths don't really sound great until you add effects pedals like reverb and delay. I found that one very quickly in my early purchases. Bassically a really good reverb makes a lot of difference when the mono synth is the prime sound versus in a larger mix. Great channel!
I used to buy only polyphonic synths because they sounds more impressive while noodling around. But in the context of music production where most parts are monophonic like the bass line, arpeggios and leads, a mono synth has many advantages over a poly synth. First, mono synths generally have a more complex voice architecture that have more possibilities sound wise. Usually you are allowed to gain stage the signal at various places in the signal chain. This allows for really phat saturated, overdriven or distorted sounds not possible on a poly synth. A good high end mono/paraphonic synth like the Pro3 is a very useful tool. When I got it I would never have thought that I would use it more often than any of my polysynths. Most tracks in a song are monophonic an a good mono synth will just do a better job than a poly. I still absolutely love poly synths but there’s a good reason why mono synths still exist.
To compare a "voice" to human voices: An oscillator is like humming vs whistling. Having multiple is like being able to hum and whistle at the same time. A voice is like a single person humming or whistling or both. So multiple voices is like having multiple people hum or whistle. If you have multiple voices, paraphony is like putting them all in front of one mic going through whatever effects. Polyphony is like giving each voice a mic and passing that through whatever effects separately.
Cool video. It took me ages to understand why someone would want a monosynth too, and I guess I didn't really understand until I impulse bought the Dreadbox Typhon. Now that synth has made appearances on almost every track I've worked on since. Basslines, leads, and feeding it arps. Just sounds so good, and you're in so much more control when you're focusing on adding one sound at a time to a composition. I think if I could only buy one piece of hardware, it would be a good monosynth. I can get by with software for everything else.
Great content! Not a beginner and enjoying it a lot. Keep it up : ). I vote yes for analog vs digital, muddy waters alert there, but that kinda adds to the fun, doesn't it? Cheers!
Great video Bro! 🔥My little desktop rig is the Korg Minilogue XD for poly and Roland SE02 for mono. With their built in fx and external reverb from the UAFX Golden Reverberator, it's more than enough for my style of cinematic, ambient musings :)
When I started the only remotely affordable synths were monophonic and the only affordable polyphonic keyboards were string synths like the ARP Quartet and home organs. Life was simpler then! 😀
I remember when I cut my finger and had to learn to type one handed. I actually got very quick with it. 20 years later I still do it from time to time. I hope your arm is healing ok.
Hey, i might be a bit overstimulated today, but as soon as the music started i couldn't focus on what you were saying. Perhaps it was the nature of the song the shifting chords with short unexpected cutoffs, maybe something a little more subdued or continuous would hold focus better.
I've been a synth nerd for years and took the liberty of skipping through your explanations straight to the part about why mono synths have their place too starting around the 08:23 mark. I was curious about your arguments and completely agree with your points. I was surprised to hear about the backlash the Moog One got for sounding "thin" and just thought to myself that people may have been expecting the "earth shattering" (as you put it) quality of a classic Moog mono synth in a poly synth. That would simply not work and sound disastrous :P (Not trying to advocate for the Moog One here btw, I've tried it in a store and was not too impressed.) I also agree with the sound design part: it's so much easier to come up with a nice mono sound and a fitting lead melody or a bass line. Funnily enough I encounter the cheesy "limitation breeds creativity" saying regularly: as soon as I'm limited I start to use the few sound design possibilities I have and try to come up with ways to make them work in the context of a song. The same thing goes for having multiple octaves to play around with: I'm a keyboard player and usually need and appreciate my five octaves whenever I play the piano or organ in my band, but when it comes to composing with synths I tend to find more interesting musical ideas far more quickly if I sit down with a three octave keyboard and a limited sound design interface. As for you making a video on digital versus analog: guess it's kind of hard to come up with original or interesting ideas on YT these days. It would not be for me because I've heard it over and over again, but I want other people to learn and think you make a good educator, so why not :) If you do that though I have one request: don't shy away from technical details. I've talked to other people about analog vs digital and the part they usually struggle with is to explain what analog actually is in terms of circuitry. They know it's "less digital" and "warmer", but that's about it. As a final point: If I had to recommend synths to people who want to start making music with them I'd say this: a beefy mono synth, a lush poly synth and a drum machine go a long way, but ultimately the gear which inspires you is the best gear. The best bit is that price doesn't influence creativity at all. However having something that both sounds pleasing on its own and feels good to the touch is satisfying, which is usually where money comes in. But as you've said: software is an affordable way to try and see if it actually is for you in the first place. Have a good one!
Wanted to say a big thanks,i have purchased the pro 3 and finding it so dif from my other synths,you vids have helped me so much,i am having trouble with the hold function staying on,must have something to do with settings ,midi sync from xd
So... the KORG Monologue is a Monophonic Synth, but the KORG Minilogue XD is advertised as a Polyphonic Synth which can play 4 notes individually at the same time but only using the same sound preset. So as I understand it, it is still incapable to play different voices at the same time, because each time I switch to another voice preset, meaning another sound, the envelope, filter as well as the reverb and effects stop abruptly and only start again when you press the key down again, which end you up effectively loosing the previous sound. That is a bummer.
Hi! Most synths can only play one timbre (preset or sound) at a time (be they mono, para or polyphonic). When you switch the preset, everything including the fx quickly snap into the current presets parameter settings, so yes, it will silence everything inmediatly. This is normal behavior though, it’s not the minilogue in particular. If a synth is multitimbral (you can stack and play different presets at once), you might be able to do this preset switch without the sudden silence, but once again, depends on the synth. My fantom 8 can do the switch while the previous sounds trail off without pops, but because it’s designed for a live player transitioning seamlessly between sounds. (The more common scenario is the abrupt silence though) Hope that helps! Thanks for stopping by!
Fantastic explanations!! I'm always a fan of how you explain things, and the care to go at a pace that's not too slow or fast. I have a (paid off!) Hydrasynth desktop and Microfreak and they are absolutely my two favorite synths. I also have a Sirin, so I feel like I have the holy trinity of synths!! Now I understand a bit better why they play off of each other so well.
You can always sample a note on the Minitaur and play the sample polyphonically, with FL Studio for example. Or better yet, just sample the raw oscillators with the filter wide open for a few seconds, then plug the sampler (say FL studio) into the external input on the Minitaur, turn the Minitaur's oscillators down, and set your MIDI keyboard to play both the sampler and the Minitaur on the same MIDI channel. Now it's a paraphonic Minitaur with full control of the envelopes and filter!
I think each type has it's merits. Monos have the best glide, paraphonics have the best grunge, and polyphonics have the best glimmer and shine. So... Sometimes you need each of these things, right?
Yeah dude, I'm still a synth noob. I just have a Minilogue XD. This was all useful for me. I like the idea of using it as a sound bed. I was thinking of getting the Moog Sub 21 next
My challenge was how to get my monophonic Moog Mother-32 to make chords without multitracking. Of course I couldn't. But then I added a Subharmonicon (6 oscillators) and assigned it to the same MIDI channel that controls the M32. Now the M32 plays the root note and the SubH's VCOs are tuned to the appropriate intervals to create a chord. A massive 7-note facemelting Moog chord if I so desire, muahahahaha. But I'm still only pressing one key, so yeah the chord is transposed as that key changes but remains the same chord structure, and therefore not true polyphonic, but a very massive paraphonic synth. Fun stuff! In this scenario, I guess the synth I have patched together is 7 oscillators, but just two voices? The M32 being a voice, and the SubH being another? Or would it only be one voice since the two boxes play all notes simultaneously are are controlled by the same MIDI control signal?
Hello! Quick question... Is the sound you play on the polybrute at 6:01 a factory preset or something you made? (if it is a factory preset which one is it?) Thanks!
You can make a Moog Grandmother a 3 voice Paraphonic synth with the SpaceBrainCircuits MidiVolts Desktop mod. They have video examples on UA-cam if you search. It’s awesome I have one!
Fantastic explanation. Thank you for helping me to understand the benefits of different synths. Backstreet Boys v Freddy Mercury! Please keep up the excellent work - thanks again.
Fantastic explanation and choice of subject! Thanks for that! And exactly because this matter is so important and the explanation is so good I would ask you to lower the background music volume. I found it a bit distracting. Nonetheless, huge value you brought us with this vídeo!
This was a super helpful video, thank you. I do want to suggest that when explaining things you turn off the background music. It is super distracting for me and I imagine others. I found I had to replay many of those parts because I was trying to pay attention to what you were saying. #ADHD problems.
Yes!! Lol, see, that’s where the lines kinda blur. The Pro 3, Sub37, Matriarch all are popularly considered to be monosynths with an optional Paraphonic mode, but I agree that they might as well just be classified as Paraphonic. I suppose it’s to emphasize that their architecture and function are mainly focused on monophonic duties, the paraphony being more of a bonus, vs something like the Microfreak which is built and meant to be used mainly as a 4 voice paraphonic synth. You’re guess is as good as mine and as I understand it, it’s a topic of hot debate among scholars👍🏼 for my example I thought it simpler to approach the Pro 3 as a mono for educational purposes. Thanks for stopping by!
Polyphonic analog synthesizers can not produce the thick, overdriven sound that an analog monophonic synth can, even when they have a mono setting because of the architecture and components.
I understand your sonic argument for why I would want to play one note at a time, but I don't see how that argument reinforces the value of a monosynth vs a polysynth. You can play a polysynth one note at a time.
As I see it, the real reason that monosynths still exist is that analog subtractive synthesis requires a linear increase in the complexity of hardware and therefore cost for each note of polyphony added.
Hi! In a nutshell, the monosynth will usually have a more beefed up sound in it’s individual voice than the poly. This comes down to it’s oscillators, which can individually afford to be “thicker” as I explained in the video. It can be heard when comparing bass sounds between these types of synths. The polybrute has amazing low end even for a polysynth, but it can’t touch the low growl of the subsequent 37 for example. You can of course use a polysynth only one note at a time in mono and unison modes and have awesome bass and lead sounds as well, but they are fundamentally different. In the end, I feel it’s just awesome that we have so many choices. Anyway, thanks for watching and joining in on the discussion! Cheers!
@@MidlifeSynthesist Sure, that's an example where the designers have chosen to limit the oscillators of the Polybrute. But I guess I have a hard time believing that the Subsequent 37 can deliver more low end growl than my TX81Z.
You're saying "Note," but I believe you mean "Pitch." You're playing 1 voice, 1 note, and 3 oscillators at three different pitches/frequencies on your Pro 3. Playing multiple pitches with one note is still one note. Basically, you're not playing new notes. You're playing one note chords.
Hi Chris, thanks for bringing this up. As far as I understand it, this is a good explanation for it: “A note is a named pitch. Arbitrarily named, of course, by us humans. For example, Western music generally refers to the 440 Hz pitch as A, specifically A4. A note can refer to an occurrence of such a pitch as well. Playing A4 twice can either be talked about as "playing one note twice" or "playing two notes", depending on the context and how specific you want to be. Notes that are even multiples of other notes share the same name; for example, 880 Hz (double 440 Hz) is also called A, specifically A5.” So in my example I’m playing let’s say C4 on oscillator 1, C5 on oscillator 2 and C3 on oscillator 3, so 3 notes, or 3 different pitches of the same C note (which I believe is what you are pointing out), so I suppose both our statements are correct👍🏼. For the purposes of understanding synth voicing and it’s difference between oscillators and notes I believe both are adecuate. Thanks for adding an interesting talking point to the conversation! Cheers!
@@MidlifeSynthesist Things get even more complex because oscillators stacked at different pitches don't have to be in twelve-note chromatic scales. I would still refer to it as a single note because stacked oscillators at different pitches are essentially additive synthesis. The rabbit hole runs deep, lol.
Marc Doty is a great guy but he is wrong: paraphony is not polyphony. The term polyphony, or its equivalent, has been used in basically the same way for over 3000 years: multiple independent voices, originally from a greek choir. If a choir singer changes his amplitude or tonality, this is done independently of other singers. In choirs and instruments ranging from guitars to cellos to pianos, polyphonic notes have always had effectively independent envelopes and timbres. Synthesizers are no different.
One voice is all you need if it’s the voice of reason and that’s the Midlife Synthesist’s voice
❤️❤️🙏🏼😇
Excellent comment, for an excellent video.
Just got back from Knobcon today. Marc Doty is still trying to help synthesists understand this concept and in the last session of the show, he did his best to clarify this. In particular, he is concerned about the lack of a standard vocabulary and much of the confusion regarding polyphony stems from the fact that many of the terms (and specifically the inconsistent use of paraphonic) come from manufacturers who (I know this is hard to believe) make up their naming conventions based on marketing.
Before I continue, please take the following in the spirit it is intended. I am NOT trying to be "that guy" who is telling people that they're wrong. I am not a troll. I am not trying to appear important or belittle anyone else. @The Midlife Synthesist - You are trying to educate others and make a complicated subject more clear and I am simply joining in on your voice to help clarify. I'd love to talk about this further and I have a background of experience that I'd like to think gives me some credibility, but hopefully you'll recognize the truth in the words I'm about to share. Again - read this in the tone of a friendly collaborator and someone who wants to help.
Having said that, I'm going to note some facts below. These facts - not opinions. They are things that are NOT open to interpretation. For example, if you choose to walk by a bear wearing a necklace made of raw meat, you are endangering yourself. You can choose to believe something else, but that opinion will not protect you if that bear is hungry. That is a fact. I want to be clear. Some things are open to opinion and are subjective. Things I've labeled as facts are just that - facts.
Fact #1: Polyphony is the number of separate notes you can control with the keys.
Technically 1 note is monophonic; two notes is duophonic; three or more notes is polyphonic.
In your example when you have three oscillators tuned to a triad, you hear three notes, but you are not controlling them independently. That is not a polyphonic experience because you are only using one key to trigger three notes and you cannot change the relationship between those notes by pressing keys - it's built into the program. (BTW - That was an excellent example that you chose to show. Kudos!)
Fact #2: Articulation and Polyphonic count are not related. (This is a HUGE misconception!)
See Fact #1 - Polyphony just means being able to play three or more different controllable notes simultaneously.
Full articulation means that every note you hit has its own filter envelope and amp envelope.
You can have an instrument that has 4-note polyphony with an amp envelope for each but they all share a single filter envelope. That is a polyphonic synth. In spite of what the manufacturer says, it is NOT a paraphonic synth. Paraphonic has a specific definition (See Fact #4 below).
Fact #3: Many people falsely assume that each voice in a polyphonic instrument should be fully articulated. This is not true.
See Fact #1 - Polyphony just means being able to play three or more different controllable notes simultaneously.
Since the introduction of the Yamaha DX7 and the flood of digital instruments that followed which had 8-voices, 16-voices, and some up and over 256 voices, synthesists around the world began to expect that each key pressed would create a fully-articulated voice. That became the default. When a new generation of analog instruments were rolled out, for cost and/or creative reasons, full articulation wasn't always available (e.g., Korg Volca Keys). The industry recognized that people were confused and began to complain so they wanted to identify that those instruments were different to govern expectations. Since the concept of polyphony had become somewhat synonymous with fully-articulated polyphony, manufacturers felt they needed to come up with a label to warn people. They dipped into the past and chose a old term that seemed to fit. Technically, it doesn't. See Fact #4.
Fact #4: Many people falsely assume that any multi-note instrument which is not fully-articulated is paraphonic. This is not true.
Paraphonic means that all voices share a SINGLE amp envelope AND a SINGLE filter envelope.
There are many instruments that have multiple amp envelopes (one for each note) but still share a single filter envelope. This is a hybrid.
Yes, that instrument is not fully-articulated. However, that does not mean that it is automatically paraphonic.
Marketing departments for synth companies use the term "paraphonic" to warn players that each independently-triggered note is not fully articulated, but that is technically incorrect unless the instrument only uses a single amp envelope and single filter envelope for all notes triggered.
Examples of such hybrid instruments include the Arturia MatrixBrute and MicroFreak. Both of which have a "paraphonic mode" that is not paraphonic. Both instruments have independent amp envelopes for each note.
The challenge we face is that this is a very confusing subject and most of us haven't taken electronic music courses in higher education. Most of us have learned what we know from personal experience, from watching UA-cam videos, and from what friends and colleagues have told us over the years. The water is muddied even further when manufacturers cannot consistently agree on what these definitions are and they fall back on marketing departments and legal teams in order to govern expectations and avoid lawsuits.
Having said all of this, society uses language as a living expression to understand and define concepts within a culture. In this role, language evolves. But to be useful and effective, language needs to be based on shared understanding and agreement. Otherwise it won't make sense and will have little value. For example, there was a time when the term "bad" only had a negative connotation. However, as part of a counter-culture movement, being labelled as "bad" by an authority figure became a symbol of pride. Therefore, in the right context, calling something "bad" became a compliment and a badge of honor. Meaning can evolve. The word "bitch" went from a specific description of a female dog used for breeding purposes to a derogatory term for a woman. Now, when used between friends, it can be a term of endearment. Language evolves as long as there is shared meaning and understanding.
In this context, there is a specific form of language called "jargon." This is dedicated terminology used by a particular group or technical field to describe specific equipment, tools, or concepts. Words like "polyphonic" and "paraphonic" are part of our jargon and should, therefore, have a consistent shared meaning. When we rely on marketing teams for manufacturers to define the meaning of our jargon, the tail is wagging the dog. They should be adhering to our shared understanding of the concept. Unfortunately, we don't have a single academic source or a unifying scholarly body to help reinforce that rule of law. However, that doesn't mean that it's "up for grabs."
I hope that this helps to clarify a few things and can serve as a springboard for further conversation. I thank you for your efforts to try to share what you know with others. It is all of our responsibility to shine what light we have in the darkness to help illuminate the truth for all. Knowledge is not meant to be wielded as a tool of oppression. Instead, it is a gift to be shared so that we all can benefit from it universally.
Peace.
Hi Ted! Thank you so much for taking the time to write this! I agree fully that a big reason that the terminology gets blurred is because instead of academics and developers, the language is being promoted by marketing teams and we the users get caught in the middle. I researched and asked around alot before making this video and as I said in it, the language gets a bit hazy depending on who you ask so I am very grateful for such a thorough explanation on your part. My intention is to help beginners have a better starting point and this sheds more light on a very murky subject. I hope people take the time to read this. All the best🤟🏻
@@MidlifeSynthesist Thanks for taking the time to read my post and for responding so respectfully. Again, I truly appreciate your attempt to clarify things and diffuse the haze that is cast over many of these concepts within our field. As I was typing this, I was afraid that it may have been met with some resistance due to the sheer size of the comment itself. Normally, when one sees a comment of this size, it's the result of someone who was triggered and has gone on a rant. I appreciate that you gave me the benefit of the doubt. I hope that we all can continue to generate a shared understanding and eventually galvanize our jargon to the point where everyone is in agreement and our language clarifies instead of confuses.
Peace.
@@tedstahl3794 @Ted Stahl Hey Ted, since I have had this discussion with Marc (whom I respect alot) a bunch of times I have just to chime in.
"These facts - not opinions. They are things that are NOT open to interpretation."
What is a fact is that there are multiple correct definitions of what polyphony means. They are however at odds with one another and they do not have the same technical accuracy or convenience. And one is free to champion whatever definitions one thinks is best. Marc champions definitions that many do not agree with (personally I see the academic beauty in his vocabulary but I also see why people do not care for it). What is the best definition however can not be defined objectively, as best is a moral statement and not a description of the world as such. Therefor it's problematic to say that something is - a fact - when you are talking definitions. Since there clearly are multiple definitions. Now, if you believe that the technically most accurate usage of a word is best, then that is totally fair. It is not however the only argument about what makes a definition good. Simplicity, as in ease of use, could be another. You even note this yourself: many brands avoid calling synths with limited articulation polyphonic (Matrixbrute comes to mind) because they do not want to confuse their customers. A consequence for example of Marcs preferred way of using the words are that we'd have to distinguish between polyphony with limited articulation and true polyphonic. And we could off course do this. Maybe we will! Maybe Marc is succesful in changing the hearts and minds of people. But it would also mean a more complicated vocabulary to keep track off. Today polyphony means, generally, true polyphony and paraphonic means limited articulation. And too many people that are very functional descriptions of what the synths are capable of. So while I see the academic beauty in what Marc does it is far from the only perspective on this.
@@BoBeats Thank you for chiming in, good sir! This is exactly what we should be doing because it's only through discussion, analysis, and debate that we can shine a light on these opinions and come to a consensus about our definitions to create a shared meaning. My degrees are in English and Communication. I have spent my academic career studying language and how we shape meaning through our words. One of my mentors at my university was Walter J. Ong who is famous for articulating the philosophical impact of language and how it shapes our perception and, therefore, our shared reality. In particular, he focused on our transition from an oral culture to a written culture. If he was alive today, I'm sure that he would be digging deeper into the hypertextual/hypermediated culture we now have have and how that has further democratized the process of shared meaning.
The big question we have though regarding the definition of polyphony and paraphony is that these are "jargon" terms. They are specific terms meant to clarify (not obscure) meaning. They are not part of a common vocabulary. You don't use these words when you walk into a hardware store or when striking up a conversation at a gas station. They pertain to our discipline as electronic musicians and synthesists.
The foundations of our field are not based on opinion. We don't have conversations where some people think that when you say "square wave" that it can mean either a square or a sine. Should we be free to champion that labeling a sine wave as a square wave is acceptable? Why add that confusion? Words and their definitions are meant to clarify - not to confuse.
The real confusion I believe stems from what I said in my original post. In the mid '80s we started seeing the growth of polyphonic instruments and due to the majority of those being digital, it was possible to maintain full articulation for each voice. Because that was the standard, people began to equate "fully-articulated polyphony" with "polyphony." The majority of the people who are resisting Marc's academic observation don't have a personal history with synthesis that predates this transition in synthesis in the '80s. My first experience with a synth was with a school-owned Moog modular in 1974. My conversations and obsession with synthesis began to take hold by 1980. As our discipline began to grow and colleges and universities began offering the option for an electronic music curriculum, the understanding of the definition of these words was critical to our study and discourse. In that regard, if we were to say that "fully-articulated polyphony" and "polyphony" are the same thing, we'd get that answer marked wrong on our test.
Now, as I also said in my original post, "language evolves." Yet, in order for meanings to change, there has to be a sense of shared agreement. When you're dealing with jargon in a specific discipline, this is a serious issue. Polyphony measures something specific. Can you imagine electricians and physicists having a different interpretation of what a volt is?!?! That would not only be confusing, but it could be dangerous.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with us all redefining what these words mean. WE choose our language and it is OUR tool and serves OUR purposes. We are not beholden to it. It is beholden to us. However, I think it is problematic to have specific jargon terms that are meant to document specific measurements within our discipline, yet we cannot agree on their definitions. We've already seen problems stem from this. There were many people who were frustrated when they bought the Volca Keys that stated it had 3-note polyphony. (It does. But it isn't fully-articulated polyphony.) So many people were used to fully-articulated polyphony that they didn't even understand the concept of a single shared envelope for the filter and/or the amp. This was unnecessary with digital instruments. However, when reintroducing analog, it became a serious cost differential.
That right there is why it's important to understand the definition of a term. The same thing happened with Behringer's Poly D. Behringer even cited Marc in order to clarify. Our real challenge here is that only a small percentage of our community has been involved with synthesis for over 40 years to have hands-on experience with these changes. In addition, an equally small percentage of our community has taken higher education courses or read published academic books about the evolution of synthesis. The majority of our community loves making music and has been self-taught. There's nothing wrong with that, but that means that their understanding of the instruments is based on what colleagues tell them and what they get from their sales person or what the manufacturers describe in their ads.
We used to have printed manuals that accompanied our instruments that provided a plethora of education. These days, we might get a PDF and a single page "quick start guide."
To summarize:
1) I welcome a discussion about these terms.
2) They originally had a single specific meaning (that's why I made my statement of facts).
3) People are confused because assumptions were made when technology evolved and they had no historical context. (No harm no foul, but that is why people assume polyphony is fully articulated).
4) We should come to a shared agreement what these words mean, even if it's different from the original meaning. The important part is that we all agree on the meaning so we have common ground for discussion.
5) Some things make sense to be subjective. Analog vs Digital - people have their own opinions and that's fine.
I hope that all makes sense. I'm not trying to be argumentative. What I want is for us to be on the same side. I'm willing to witness the evolution of a term, but its meaning should evolve because we want it to do so. Then, everyone can use it the right way.
Peace.
I used to have a music teacher who could use his voice and his nose to sing chords. A wonderful man
Great video dude 😊 Pretty much the exact debate/question/misunderstanding/confusion I’ve been having in my head until I watched your Pro 3 video from before hahaha! Great explanation too, I wasn’t really sure about the whole paraphonic thing ✌🏻
❤️❤️thanks dude!! Happy the explanation makes sense🙏🏼
11:10 this is an important point. When I bought the Reface YC, all of the electric organ patches on my DXs and ROMplers were instantly redundant. Manipulating the "drawbars" while I play is a fundamental part of the organ sound I want to hear.
This is truly educational and holds a ton of value. Thank you.
I really appreciate the feedback my friend! Thanks for watching🤟🏻
Excellent informative video. Wish I had this knowledge 5 years ago when I started my synth journey. No idea how regular folks could have learned about this stuff back in the classic synth period (70's early 80's) without media like this - not to mention costs back then compared to now. I grew up in the 70's 80's and always loved the sounds but had no idea about the gear that made them. Now that I am (midlife) older and have the ability to aquire some of the reasonable priced gear I find it to be an amazing, beautiful, frustrating, satisfying, (money draining) experience. Love it!
Thank you so much for watching! I was trying to find more videos like this when I realized there seems to be a lack of videos on the very basics, so I think I might make a few more just for fun and to the info out there for any who might need it❤️ see you soon! Cheers!
@@MidlifeSynthesist suggest talking about how a lot of mono synths don't really sound great until you add effects pedals like reverb and delay. I found that one very quickly in my early purchases. Bassically a really good reverb makes a lot of difference when the mono synth is the prime sound versus in a larger mix. Great channel!
I used to buy only polyphonic synths because they sounds more impressive while noodling around. But in the context of music production where most parts are monophonic like the bass line, arpeggios and leads, a mono synth has many advantages over a poly synth. First, mono synths generally have a more complex voice architecture that have more possibilities sound wise. Usually you are allowed to gain stage the signal at various places in the signal chain. This allows for really phat saturated, overdriven or distorted sounds not possible on a poly synth. A good high end mono/paraphonic synth like the Pro3 is a very useful tool. When I got it I would never have thought that I would use it more often than any of my polysynths. Most tracks in a song are monophonic an a good mono synth will just do a better job than a poly. I still absolutely love poly synths but there’s a good reason why mono synths still exist.
Thank you! Just getting into synthesis and this cleared up so many questions.
To compare a "voice" to human voices:
An oscillator is like humming vs whistling. Having multiple is like being able to hum and whistle at the same time.
A voice is like a single person humming or whistling or both. So multiple voices is like having multiple people hum or whistle.
If you have multiple voices, paraphony is like putting them all in front of one mic going through whatever effects. Polyphony is like giving each voice a mic and passing that through whatever effects separately.
I bought the Microfreak, Monologue, Reface DX, and IK MM Uno Synth Pro so I very much appreciate this comparison/explanation of "paraphony."
What a great explanation & reminder -- Thank you!
love your laid-back vibe, great clarity and heaps helpful splaining. Thanks a lot!~
Cool video. It took me ages to understand why someone would want a monosynth too, and I guess I didn't really understand until I impulse bought the Dreadbox Typhon. Now that synth has made appearances on almost every track I've worked on since. Basslines, leads, and feeding it arps. Just sounds so good, and you're in so much more control when you're focusing on adding one sound at a time to a composition. I think if I could only buy one piece of hardware, it would be a good monosynth. I can get by with software for everything else.
Great content! Not a beginner and enjoying it a lot. Keep it up : ). I vote yes for analog vs digital, muddy waters alert there, but that kinda adds to the fun, doesn't it? Cheers!
Great video Bro! 🔥My little desktop rig is the Korg Minilogue XD for poly and Roland SE02 for mono. With their built in fx and external reverb from the UAFX Golden Reverberator, it's more than enough for my style of cinematic, ambient musings :)
When I started the only remotely affordable synths were monophonic and the only affordable polyphonic keyboards were string synths like the ARP Quartet and home organs. Life was simpler then! 😀
good video, paraphonic share the filter so i'd like to hear how the 7th paraphonic voice affects the filter of the previous voices.
Thank you Sir. Best explenation! All the best from switzerland
🙏🏼
I remember when I cut my finger and had to learn to type one handed. I actually got very quick with it.
20 years later I still do it from time to time. I hope your arm is healing ok.
Thanks for the video! I guess I've misunderstood what a voice is and the clarity on paraphony was much needed.
What a great video - really appreciated!
Thank you so much! 🙏🏼
Finally, I found the video that clearly explains my confusion. Thnx.
Glad it helped!🙌🏻
Very well explained, thank you 👍☮️
Hey, i might be a bit overstimulated today, but as soon as the music started i couldn't focus on what you were saying. Perhaps it was the nature of the song the shifting chords with short unexpected cutoffs, maybe something a little more subdued or continuous would hold focus better.
As always, excellent break down with clear examples. Much appreciated!
I've been a synth nerd for years and took the liberty of skipping through your explanations straight to the part about why mono synths have their place too starting around the 08:23 mark. I was curious about your arguments and completely agree with your points. I was surprised to hear about the backlash the Moog One got for sounding "thin" and just thought to myself that people may have been expecting the "earth shattering" (as you put it) quality of a classic Moog mono synth in a poly synth. That would simply not work and sound disastrous :P (Not trying to advocate for the Moog One here btw, I've tried it in a store and was not too impressed.)
I also agree with the sound design part: it's so much easier to come up with a nice mono sound and a fitting lead melody or a bass line. Funnily enough I encounter the cheesy "limitation breeds creativity" saying regularly: as soon as I'm limited I start to use the few sound design possibilities I have and try to come up with ways to make them work in the context of a song. The same thing goes for having multiple octaves to play around with: I'm a keyboard player and usually need and appreciate my five octaves whenever I play the piano or organ in my band, but when it comes to composing with synths I tend to find more interesting musical ideas far more quickly if I sit down with a three octave keyboard and a limited sound design interface.
As for you making a video on digital versus analog: guess it's kind of hard to come up with original or interesting ideas on YT these days. It would not be for me because I've heard it over and over again, but I want other people to learn and think you make a good educator, so why not :) If you do that though I have one request: don't shy away from technical details. I've talked to other people about analog vs digital and the part they usually struggle with is to explain what analog actually is in terms of circuitry. They know it's "less digital" and "warmer", but that's about it. As a final point: If I had to recommend synths to people who want to start making music with them I'd say this: a beefy mono synth, a lush poly synth and a drum machine go a long way, but ultimately the gear which inspires you is the best gear. The best bit is that price doesn't influence creativity at all. However having something that both sounds pleasing on its own and feels good to the touch is satisfying, which is usually where money comes in. But as you've said: software is an affordable way to try and see if it actually is for you in the first place. Have a good one!
Great and explanatory video. With a very comfortable and kind narration. Thank you.
Great vid for those starting out, and a nice refresh of thoughts for those of us that have plenty of experience!
Always a pleasure! Great teaching approach and relevant video production. I really like your friendly and relax style. Cheers!
That's what they should teach in school! :)
Thanks bro❤️
superb explanation.
Thanks so much!!
Wanted to say a big thanks,i have purchased the pro 3 and finding it so dif from my other synths,you vids have helped me so much,i am having trouble with the hold function staying on,must have something to do with settings ,midi sync from xd
Excellent video - thanks
Thanks for watching!
Great info vid P.s Have you seen the new Deluge Oled screen also I was wondering what make the drum pad was at 6:15 ?
So... the KORG Monologue is a Monophonic Synth, but the KORG Minilogue XD is advertised as a Polyphonic Synth which can play 4 notes individually at the same time but only using the same sound preset. So as I understand it, it is still incapable to play different voices at the same time, because each time I switch to another voice preset, meaning another sound, the envelope, filter as well as the reverb and effects stop abruptly and only start again when you press the key down again, which end you up effectively loosing the previous sound. That is a bummer.
Hi! Most synths can only play one timbre (preset or sound) at a time (be they mono, para or polyphonic). When you switch the preset, everything including the fx quickly snap into the current presets parameter settings, so yes, it will silence everything inmediatly. This is normal behavior though, it’s not the minilogue in particular. If a synth is multitimbral (you can stack and play different presets at once), you might be able to do this preset switch without the sudden silence, but once again, depends on the synth. My fantom 8 can do the switch while the previous sounds trail off without pops, but because it’s designed for a live player transitioning seamlessly between sounds. (The more common scenario is the abrupt silence though) Hope that helps! Thanks for stopping by!
Very helpful. Thank you.
Fantastic explanations!! I'm always a fan of how you explain things, and the care to go at a pace that's not too slow or fast. I have a (paid off!) Hydrasynth desktop and Microfreak and they are absolutely my two favorite synths. I also have a Sirin, so I feel like I have the holy trinity of synths!! Now I understand a bit better why they play off of each other so well.
Bought a mono the other day and my wife says "can't you just put a poly in mono?" I said yes but this one is yellow :3
Great video and I had the same questions and one stage. I do still prefer a poly over a mono synth, although I absolutely adore my Moog Minitaur!
You can always sample a note on the Minitaur and play the sample polyphonically, with FL Studio for example. Or better yet, just sample the raw oscillators with the filter wide open for a few seconds, then plug the sampler (say FL studio) into the external input on the Minitaur, turn the Minitaur's oscillators down, and set your MIDI keyboard to play both the sampler and the Minitaur on the same MIDI channel. Now it's a paraphonic Minitaur with full control of the envelopes and filter!
@@gimmiethejuice That sounds like a fun idea! Thanks!
Very enlightening. And yeah please Analog vs Digital, sounds awesome
Excellent explanation.
I think each type has it's merits. Monos have the best glide, paraphonics have the best grunge, and polyphonics have the best glimmer and shine. So... Sometimes you need each of these things, right?
Always!🙌🏻🙌🏻
Yeah dude, I'm still a synth noob. I just have a Minilogue XD. This was all useful for me. I like the idea of using it as a sound bed. I was thinking of getting the Moog Sub 21 next
My challenge was how to get my monophonic Moog Mother-32 to make chords without multitracking. Of course I couldn't. But then I added a Subharmonicon (6 oscillators) and assigned it to the same MIDI channel that controls the M32. Now the M32 plays the root note and the SubH's VCOs are tuned to the appropriate intervals to create a chord. A massive 7-note facemelting Moog chord if I so desire, muahahahaha. But I'm still only pressing one key, so yeah the chord is transposed as that key changes but remains the same chord structure, and therefore not true polyphonic, but a very massive paraphonic synth. Fun stuff! In this scenario, I guess the synth I have patched together is 7 oscillators, but just two voices? The M32 being a voice, and the SubH being another? Or would it only be one voice since the two boxes play all notes simultaneously are are controlled by the same MIDI control signal?
@The Midlife Synthesist is this really you?
Sorry you'll have to respond from your main if you want me to do as you ask
If anyone's curious I reached out to the real MLS and he confirmed the account above is a scammer. Beware the piece of shit in our midst
Yes, I really need the physical hardware. 😁
Lol! Then maybe something like the minilogue xd or hydrasynth for poly duties would be nice😁
Hello!
Quick question... Is the sound you play on the polybrute at 6:01 a factory preset or something you made? (if it is a factory preset which one is it?)
Thanks!
When running a stereo left and right from synth to mixer, do you pan the mixer inputs hard left and right?
You can make a Moog Grandmother a 3 voice Paraphonic synth with the SpaceBrainCircuits MidiVolts Desktop mod. They have video examples on UA-cam if you search. It’s awesome I have one!
Fantastic explanation. Thank you for helping me to understand the benefits of different synths. Backstreet Boys v Freddy Mercury! Please keep up the excellent work - thanks again.
your Pro 3 video last time gave me GAS.
Thanks for this.
The behringer rd-9 has voices that's cool for a rather designer !!! Fred[E]ricK...🇦🇺
Fantastic explanation and choice of subject! Thanks for that! And exactly because this matter is so important and the explanation is so good I would ask you to lower the background music volume. I found it a bit distracting. Nonetheless, huge value you brought us with this vídeo!
Nice video..nice concise description! Perhaps background music a little loud though just saying..
Thank you my friend!! I always struggle with the level of background music, sorry for that😅 I’ll be sure to tone it down🫡 cheers!
No worries! My videos are very basic! ha ha your doing great stuff..
This was a super helpful video, thank you. I do want to suggest that when explaining things you turn off the background music. It is super distracting for me and I imagine others. I found I had to replay many of those parts because I was trying to pay attention to what you were saying. #ADHD problems.
This is valuable feedback! Thank you for watching and for taking the time to write this my friend, see you soon!
well said
great video thanks :)
My poly does most of the work, but my mono is the star. The choicest cuts
Same here!❤️
Very helpful. ;)
🙌🏻🙌🏻
thanks
I feel this tutorial would benefit from just a little more vibrato. 🧡
Wait, if the Pro 3 supports paraphony, isn't it a paraphonic synth rather than a monosynth then? 🧐
Yes!! Lol, see, that’s where the lines kinda blur. The Pro 3, Sub37, Matriarch all are popularly considered to be monosynths with an optional Paraphonic mode, but I agree that they might as well just be classified as Paraphonic. I suppose it’s to emphasize that their architecture and function are mainly focused on monophonic duties, the paraphony being more of a bonus, vs something like the Microfreak which is built and meant to be used mainly as a 4 voice paraphonic synth. You’re guess is as good as mine and as I understand it, it’s a topic of hot debate among scholars👍🏼 for my example I thought it simpler to approach the Pro 3 as a mono for educational purposes. Thanks for stopping by!
@@MidlifeSynthesist haha, thanks for "clarifying". Clear as mud as we say in Australia 😁
@@GuidoGautsch now you get it🤣👍🏼
Matrixbrute too is considered monophonic, and yet ....
Ah! Almost forgot! Please bring your light to the analog vs digital and also FM vs subtractive and other types of synth engines!
256 or unlimited Roland V-Piano - no compromise!
Did the Backstreet Boys even sing at the same time?
Asking the real questions😂🤟🏻
buena silla :P
Jajaja🤩
Don’t forget polyrhythms lol I leaned all this when note stealing and notes dropped out of certain machines like oh, there’s a limit
Polyphonic analog synthesizers can not produce the thick, overdriven sound that an analog monophonic synth can, even when they have a mono setting because of the architecture and components.
I understand your sonic argument for why I would want to play one note at a time, but I don't see how that argument reinforces the value of a monosynth vs a polysynth. You can play a polysynth one note at a time.
As I see it, the real reason that monosynths still exist is that analog subtractive synthesis requires a linear increase in the complexity of hardware and therefore cost for each note of polyphony added.
Hi! In a nutshell, the monosynth will usually have a more beefed up sound in it’s individual voice than the poly. This comes down to it’s oscillators, which can individually afford to be “thicker” as I explained in the video. It can be heard when comparing bass sounds between these types of synths. The polybrute has amazing low end even for a polysynth, but it can’t touch the low growl of the subsequent 37 for example. You can of course use a polysynth only one note at a time in mono and unison modes and have awesome bass and lead sounds as well, but they are fundamentally different. In the end, I feel it’s just awesome that we have so many choices. Anyway, thanks for watching and joining in on the discussion! Cheers!
@@MidlifeSynthesist Sure, that's an example where the designers have chosen to limit the oscillators of the Polybrute. But I guess I have a hard time believing that the Subsequent 37 can deliver more low end growl than my TX81Z.
You're saying "Note," but I believe you mean "Pitch." You're playing 1 voice, 1 note, and 3 oscillators at three different pitches/frequencies on your Pro 3. Playing multiple pitches with one note is still one note. Basically, you're not playing new notes. You're playing one note chords.
Hi Chris, thanks for bringing this up. As far as I understand it, this is a good explanation for it: “A note is a named pitch. Arbitrarily named, of course, by us humans. For example, Western music generally refers to the 440 Hz pitch as A, specifically A4. A note can refer to an occurrence of such a pitch as well. Playing A4 twice can either be talked about as "playing one note twice" or "playing two notes", depending on the context and how specific you want to be. Notes that are even multiples of other notes share the same name; for example, 880 Hz (double 440 Hz) is also called A, specifically A5.” So in my example I’m playing let’s say C4 on oscillator 1, C5 on oscillator 2 and C3 on oscillator 3, so 3 notes, or 3 different pitches of the same C note (which I believe is what you are pointing out), so I suppose both our statements are correct👍🏼. For the purposes of understanding synth voicing and it’s difference between oscillators and notes I believe both are adecuate. Thanks for adding an interesting talking point to the conversation! Cheers!
@@MidlifeSynthesist Things get even more complex because oscillators stacked at different pitches don't have to be in twelve-note chromatic scales. I would still refer to it as a single note because stacked oscillators at different pitches are essentially additive synthesis. The rabbit hole runs deep, lol.
Hi did you just ask me to contact you via Telegram? Or is this SPAM?! :(
SPAM!! I am not on telegram!!
@@MidlifeSynthesist Thought not - beware! Thanks
Marc Doty is a great guy but he is wrong: paraphony is not polyphony. The term polyphony, or its equivalent, has been used in basically the same way for over 3000 years: multiple independent voices, originally from a greek choir. If a choir singer changes his amplitude or tonality, this is done independently of other singers. In choirs and instruments ranging from guitars to cellos to pianos, polyphonic notes have always had effectively independent envelopes and timbres. Synthesizers are no different.
PI Fred[[E]]ricK would love a job like this sponsor me e.d.m edm hardware music makers respect from 🇦🇺2024-
to much commercials :( I don´t like
One synth + looper = infinite voices