[Joe Hanley]

Try using RM from a sine wave to a thin pulse wave, and setting the sine wave’s pitch to +19 semi. Raising the pitch is really important for RM and FM when you want to bring out a metallic or bell-like character.

[Joe Hanley]

Because this is so processed, it almost doesn’t sound like a guitar anymore. So you can get pretty close with a synth. Try starting with this:

Oscillator: Thin pulse wave. Double and detune it (or use 2-voice Unison) with a pretty aggressive detune amount. This will bring in that smear and pitchy wobble.

Filter: Band pass with lots of resonance. Adjust the cutoff to match the sound. We’re looking for somewhere in the upper-mid range, to create a small and kind-of-bright sound.

Amp Envelope: Put a subtle attack transient on the sound to emulate a string pluck, by bringing the sustain down a bit (not all the way) and setting a quick decay.

LFO: Add more pitch wobble (this sound is wobbly). Quick rate, mild amount.

Chorus: Smear the sound a bit more, with a bit of chorus.

[Joe Hanley]

Yes. It’s on the to-do list.

Also, soon I’ll be putting out a YT video that goes over the differences between FM and Subtractive, and provides a “getting started” overview of FM.

[Joe Hanley]

By the way, to embed a youtube video in the post, just copy and paste the youtube link. No need to put it in a link tag.

[Joe Hanley]

Best way to get that vocal vowel is with a formant filter. You can take any waveform you want, run it through it through the formant filter and tweak it’s cutoff. Or the filter might have a dedicated control for choosing/shaping the vowel, depending on the synth you use.

If you don’t have access to a formant filter, cranking a low pass filter’s resonance, and carefully setting the cutoff, can also push out a vowel-esque character in the filter.

This track’s patch also has a noise layer. It sounds like it’s a separate patch, running through its own filter. It’s really bright on the first two notes, but gets shaped more like the pad on the 3rd note, and adds a breathiness that makes that 3rd note sound even more human.

[Joe Hanley]

Dylan Kiehart wrote:

Any suggestions on a sequencer to work in tandem with the DX7. Think i can get away with using my daw?

Yes. According to VintageSynth it has MIDI In, so you should be able to play it from your DAW

[Joe Hanley]

Colin1970 wrote:

Hi Joe and all Syntorians, I’ve just registered and I’m still enjoying learning and using the Syntorial software. And I’m also using my fav DAW called FL Studio since january which I really enjoy using but watching their video tutorials isn’t the same as interacting with challenges and quizzes using your VST.

This is a unique idea you’ve created here.

Welcome to the forum Colin!

[Joe Hanley]

That album has a strong 80s vibe. So first find the right drum samples. Check out this discussion on Gearslutz for an 80s drum machine: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/650517-classic-drum-machines-sounds-80s.html

The synths sound like a combination of classic subtractive and FM synths. The subtractive stuff will come pretty easily to you as you progress through Syntorial. A google search showed that he’s really into the Yamaha DX7 for FM stuff. Arturia makes a soft synth version: https://www.arturia.com/dx7-v/overview. You can also get that DX vibe using other FM synths like Operator, FM8, etc.

Most of the DX7 and FM synth controls you’ll be familiar with as you go through Syntorial, except for one: the oscillator Ratios. FM synths work a little differently as the different oscillators modulate each other. We cover FM later in Syntorial, but it’s within a subtractive environment. I plan to cover FM Operator in a youtube video soon, but for now Reverb Machine has a helpful article on the original DX7: https://reverbmachine.com/blog/exploring-the-yamaha-dx7. Scroll down to “Operating the DX”

[Joe Hanley]

If you really want to nail this sound I would go the sampler route, instead of a synth. Start with a bass vst/sample library. And then run it through heavy distortion. The exact tone is going to vary depending upon the bass you choose, and the distortion you choose. But you’ll get the vibe right away with those two things.

For example I brought up MM-Bass in Kontakt, and then ran it through some of Logic’s built in distortions, cranked the distortion, and it was pretty much there.

Let There Be Light sounds like a regular fingered bass. Phantom sounds like a slap bass.

If you’d prefer doing it with a synth, we can get pretty close, but would have to tweak the waveform and filter to get a more string-bass vibe. Happy to help with that, but I would go the bass sampler + distortion route if you can.

[Joe Hanley]

Happy to help!

[Joe Hanley]

Hi Matt

I think you’re on the right track. But it’s missing that metallic bell-like timbre. My first thought is to try FM or Ring mod. What synth are you using?

[Joe Hanley]

When recreating a patch in a song it can be tougher because, as you said, it’s hard to really “hear” it in a mixed song. So a few things:

1. Search the whole song for the most clear point. For example, in the last tut I did for Sicko Mode, I was struggling with the sub bass a bit because it had a particular tone, not a typical sine wave. However, I back-tracked to the intro and realized it was being played there without drums or the second bass, both of which were making it harder to hear.

2. Start with the most obvious aspects of the sound first. Get the easier stuff out of the way. Each patch is different so whatever sticks out, try to do that first.

3. Experiment. In my videos I make it look like a clear, easy and logical process, but since I can’t hear the naked patch, I still have to experiment a lot. I’ll do a little bit one day, come back to it the next, realize it’s way off, try again, etc.

4. Focus more on the filter than the waveform. I find that I’m tweaking the filter a lot when recreating patches, more so than the waveform. When I do these recreations I end up with Saw 80% of the time, because even if the actual patch used a different waveform, it became less important due to the filtering and effects. I usually try to stick to basic subtractive waveforms for this reason, and it almost always works out, which saves a lot of time on trial-and-error that would be involved in trying out different wavetables.

And yes, a strong ear comes with repetition. Lots of repetition. Sounds are so infinitely different and internally complex, that it requires our brain’s nondeclarative memory (the part that enables us to talk, walk, ride a bike, play the piano, etc) to get involved in order to recognize what’s going on. And that part of our brain only learns through actual experience and repetition.

[Joe Hanley]

Hey Dubmethod

I’ve dabbled a bit but never really dug into it seriously. For me, I go through the exercise of recreating patches in songs to train my ear, so that I can ultimately make the the things I’m hearing in my head, as well as tweak patches when I know/hear what I want or don’t want them to do.

But reverse engineering doesn’t really help with that goal, as I can’t analyze what I hear in my brain.

So no, I wouldn’t recommend it as a good starting point. It’s definitely an interesting concept, and if it piques your interest, I would pursue it to scratch that mental itch. And no doubt you’ll definitely learn things in the process.

But, in all things music, my goal is get to a point where I can make what I feel and hear with as little analysis and technical thought as possible. Free, open and pure expression.

[Joe Hanley]

Made a tut for this one, remaking both basses, drums, and the organ-ish patch.

[Joe Hanley]

Great! Glad to help.