squarepusher Squarepusher and FM Synthesis

im don't have the technical knowledge to answer your question, i just know that some of the software editors i've tried work on my gear and other ones don't. Most of the time some aspect of it's functionality is crippled. The best software editor i've used no contest is the Polyevolver editor. I wish other software editors had the same ease of use and patch mashup/randomize capability. Maybe they do and im just not aware of them.

in the process of researching the fs1r some more i came across this.

anyone who's worked with TouchOSC before can appreciate the amount of work that went into this. very impressive.

  On 4/15/2012 at 8:14 AM, digit said:

in the process of researching the fs1r some more i came across this.

 

anyone who's worked with TouchOSC before can appreciate the amount of work that went into this. very impressive.

I've seen that,bummer it relies on a $165 dollar device

jesus.

  On 4/15/2012 at 10:12 AM, kaydpea said:

bummer it relies on a $165 dollar device

i used to think the iPad was a mostly frivolous device. i was surprised when it became as popular as it did when it first came out.

i got a refurbished iPad 1 to use solely as a midi controller for my hardware, but once i got the thing in my hands i found it difficult to put down.

it's hard to explain, but there is something about the form factor, size, and the fact that you interact with it thru touch that makes it really compelling.

eventually, you find all sorts of other uses for it. it's really great to use when travelling.

with the core midi support in the os, you can connect the iPad straight to your hardware with a standard usb to midi cable + camera connection kit. no computer or other intermediary required. the os is stable and the hardware is pretty indestructible. you can toss it around a bit without fear of breaking something.

i still wouldn't buy an iPad new but if you can get one used/refurbished i think it's a great value, especially considering what a Lemur used to cost not too long ago.

using an Ipad with a software editor for a piece of hardware synth is probably one of the best ideas i've ever heard for using an Ipad. Going to try it as soon as i can

  On 4/14/2012 at 11:23 AM, kaydpea said:

raising this thread from the dead for posterity. Yes he uses reaktor, no not typically for synths, from what i've seen and heard software is mostly only coming in to play to play samples. everything is entirely sequenced on the Yamaha QY700, which i own, and his 2 main synths are the FS1R and the TX81Z.........

 

Nice post Mr. kaydpea. I find pretty interesting the different workflows and the results that they produce. I always thought that Squarepusher used trackers for these crazy tracks like Do you know..., knowing that the QY700 is still the sequencer is amazing (maybe just because I'm used to renoise and I don't know anything about the Yamaha : )

About FM and analog and software, I dunno... They can be different for sure, but better or worse...I find Monolake fm sounds really good, and they are all produced in Ableton´s Operator (his design), just an example. I find it very subjective, I mean, there's a logical reason that can explain why a computer cant make good fm synthesis? Its not trying to emulate a les paul and a Sunn amp : )

  On 4/15/2012 at 9:46 PM, capitan mission said:

  On 4/14/2012 at 11:23 AM, kaydpea said:

raising this thread from the dead for posterity. Yes he uses reaktor, no not typically for synths, from what i've seen and heard software is mostly only coming in to play to play samples. everything is entirely sequenced on the Yamaha QY700, which i own, and his 2 main synths are the FS1R and the TX81Z.........

 

 

Nice post Mr. kaydpea. I find pretty interesting the different workflows and the results that they produce. I always thought that Squarepusher used trackers for these crazy tracks like Do you know..., knowing that the QY700 is still the sequencer is amazing (maybe just because I'm used to renoise and I don't know anything about the Yamaha : )

About FM and analog and software, I dunno... They can be different for sure, but better or worse...I find Monolake fm sounds really good, and they are all produced in Ableton´s Operator (his design), just an example. I find it very subjective, I mean, there's a logical reason that can explain why a computer cant make good fm synthesis? Its not trying to emulate a les paul and a Sunn amp : )

theoretically someone SHOULD be able to duplicate the FS1R with software, seeing as the device itself is entirely digital. there have been a few people make similar ideas with reaktor with .ens "proof of concept" projects in the user forums, but nothing as actually elaborate as the FS1R. hardware like that has it's own sound, and compared to FM8, which would be the most logical route to duplicating a hardware synth with software, they sound very different. the hardware options generally produce a much larger, thicker textural sound. like in FM8 i can import my sysex patches from the FS1R or TX81z and while you can definitely tell it's the same instrument, the sound difference is totally different. it's obviously a matter of opinion, there would certainly be instances where maybe you wanted that exact sound, but i haven't heard the richness of the FS1R duplicated anywhere. again, in theory it should be possible, it would also be a daunting task. a lot of the reason it sounds so "large" is due to the fact it literally has thousands of parameters and does what's called formants. formants is a special feature that not a lot of hardware or even software synths are doing. i would venture to say by the time you actually duplicated the FS1R with software, not only would it still not sound as rich, but your CPU would be completely taxed. there are pros and cons to both sides of the situation. i bet the hardware FS1R could be built today again for next to nothing, but it existed for only 2 years and now it's rather expensive used. but for good reason, as far as FM synthesis is concerned, it's the end all be all. it can do anything you can imagine, and it's total obscurity in the means of easy editability means you don't have thousands of people using it. it truly allows you to create your own sound. it's for sure worth mentioning that the topic was originally how squarepusher does things, and that my point was, you're probably not going to reproduce his "sound" very well with software, since he's really not using much, if any. also yeah about the QY700, he's still using it, and it's still the best hardware sequencer ever made, i love it, and they can be gotten still for not a whole lot of money. the most expensive part of his rig i would say are his eventide effects processors. those run a few grand each, and he has several. but they're amazing devices, i have yet to get one, but plan to. they allow you to edit effects patches much like you would in reaktor. where you can create a series of effects in a chain and route the signal how you want through each. these can be created on the computer with a program called VSIG" the eventide racks contribute A LOT to his sound. that incredible reverb and delay and compression, hard to do with software.

well, viewing it in that way (very specific tools involved, tools with a lot of character) reproducing the sound is out of reach, very difficult at least. in the other hand, trying it will teach a lot about synthesis and why some equipment is special.

The most important reason for me to buy a hardware sequencer is because sometimes Im sic of staying in front of the computer, I dont want to go blind, but here in Argentina these things are ridiculous expensive (and rare), so, DAWs are very helpful here...

trying to reverse engineer the FS1R as a reaktor patch would be insane, it would require a level of autism that i don't think most human beings are capable of. Some of those last really breakthrough digital synths still beat out anything produced today software or hardware. FM8 is amazing, but even from playing with an Fs1R's presets and tweaking them a little you can just tell that it's a far more complex and interesting beast. I feel the same way about the Yamaha Vl1 synthesizer, even though software physical modeling has become quite complex as of late, the wind and brass instrument emulations in the Vl1 sound far more high quality and realistic than anything produced almost 2 decades later

and Kaydpea, you sound very knowledgeable about these type of things. How do you know squarepusher doesn't use very much software? the way he turns his bass guitar into an FM synth instrument always sounded 'reaktory' to me but then again i have no inside knowledge to how he produces, just what he says on interviews. On a video i did see him using Cooledit 2.0 pro which was always one of my theories on how he got such tight edits on Go Plastic. I'm not saying he did not use an Eventide, i'm sure he did but what's the best stereo wave editor out there? cooledit fucking 2.0

regarding the earlier discussion on "modern bass guitar" and the sped up drum effect. i'm quit sure this is done with an actual tape, as knowing how he works, and what he uses, i would say that effect is achieved by recording a drum loop onto a tap at half speed, or even 1/4 speed intervals then playing the tape at regular speed, definitely don't think this is a digital effect, could be totally wrong, it could be the eventide box or reaktor, but it doesn't sound like it to me.

  On 4/16/2012 at 5:22 AM, Awepittance said:

trying to reverse engineer the FS1R as a reaktor patch would be insane, it would require a level of autism that i don't think most human beings are capable of. Some of those last really breakthrough digital synths still beat out anything produced today software or hardware. FM8 is amazing, but even from playing with an Fs1R's presets and tweaking them a little you can just tell that it's a far more complex and interesting beast. I feel the same way about the Yamaha Vl1 synthesizer, even though software physical modeling has become quite complex as of late, the wind and brass instrument emulations in the Vl1 sound far more high quality and realistic than anything produced almost 2 decades later

 

and Kaydpea, you sound very knowledgeable about these type of things. How do you know squarepusher doesn't use very much software? the way he turns his bass guitar into an FM synth instrument always sounded 'reaktory' to me but then again i have no inside knowledge to how he produces, just what he says on interviews. On a video i did see him using Cooledit 2.0 pro which was always one of my theories on how he got such tight edits on Go Plastic. I'm not saying he did not use an Eventide, i'm sure he did but what's the best stereo wave editor out there? cooledit fucking 2.0

some of what i know is having the same equipment, a lot of what i know is from here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may11/articles/sqpshr.htm

you can acutally see the FS1R and TX81z together alone in the pictures.

interesting read and as always, when you're playing with the same equipment, and you know someone like him is using the same thing, when you listen to a song and think 'how was that done' it's a lot easier to figure it out using the hardware rather than 'there's a million ways to do this on a computer, that won't sound the same' after a while you start to really get how clever people like him or afx are when programming a sequencer or a sampler. as far as go plastic goes, he's specifically said there was 0 computer work on that and it was 100% hardware, the wiki page for go plastic also states this.

Cool topic, some good insights here!

  On 4/15/2012 at 11:16 PM, kaydpea said:

i would venture to say by the time you actually duplicated the FS1R with software, not only would it still not sound as rich, but your CPU would be completely taxed.

Really? A common CPU can handle the load of a DAW running a few dozen stereo tracks with a few dozen VST effects each - and still synthesizing one complex FM algorithm is more demanding? What kind of CPU is in the FS1R synth, then?

  On 4/15/2012 at 11:16 PM, kaydpea said:

there are pros and cons to both sides of the situation. i bet the hardware FS1R could be built today again for next to nothing, but it existed for only 2 years and now it's rather expensive used. but for good reason, as far as FM synthesis is concerned, it's the end all be all. it can do anything you can imagine, and it's total obscurity in the means of easy editability means you don't have thousands of people using it.

It sounds like you're saying it's expensive because it's too complex to be in popular demand - but I guess you mean that it sold badly while it was in production, and now it's more popular than it was originally?

  On 4/15/2012 at 11:16 PM, kaydpea said:

the most expensive part of his rig i would say are his eventide effects processors.

He bought a CS80 a couple years back.

  On 4/16/2012 at 5:22 AM, Awepittance said:

How do you know squarepusher doesn't use very much software? the way he turns his bass guitar into an FM synth instrument always sounded 'reaktory' to me

For some sounds at least, he says this in the SOS interview:

  Quote

I also used the Orville for the bass distortion on the record. I wanted to have unified tone for the album, so I developed some specific software patches to do the processing on the bass. The bass distortion on the track ‘Megazine’ was done with an old‑school 110V Morley Wah pedal and an Orville distortion patch based on a curve, X/Y‑mapping module. On the track ‘Abstract Lover’, I created a bass effect patch doing pitch‑shifting in the Orville and then going into a frequency divider/distortion patch in [Native Instruments’] Reaktor software.

  On 4/16/2012 at 5:51 AM, psn said:

Cool topic, some good insights here!

 

Really? A common CPU can handle the load of a DAW running a few dozen stereo tracks with a few dozen VST effects each - and still synthesizing one complex FM algorithm is more demanding? What kind of CPU is in the FS1R synth, then?

 

not sure what CPU is in the FS1R i do know that it's a 16 OP FM synth with 88 different algorithms running formants, with thousands of simultaneous paramaters, literally. i couldn't see a VST doing this smoothly, but i could be wrong, would LOVE to see someone do exactly this.

 

It sounds like you're saying it's expensive because it's too complex to be in popular demand - but I guess you mean that it sold badly while it was in production, and now it's more popular than it was originally?

yeah it did horribly while in production because it was unfathomable for most people to edit all of the settings on that tiny LCD. i would say it would sell well today, but there isn't anything like it, nor has there ever been. so now when one pops up on ebay they can get just about whatever they want for it within reason. usually $800-1200. it's popularity has increased with software becoming available to make editing it a lot easier. back then every review said, "the best FM synth ever that's impossible to use"

 

  On 4/15/2012 at 11:16 PM, kaydpea said:

the most expensive part of his rig i would say are his eventide effects processors.

 

He bought a CS80 a couple years back.

yeah, those things are crazy expensive, i wonder if he's ever used it in a song.

 

  On 4/16/2012 at 5:22 AM, Awepittance said:

How do you know squarepusher doesn't use very much software? the way he turns his bass guitar into an FM synth instrument always sounded 'reaktory' to me

well i've read multiple interviews where up until 2001 he has stated he used 0 software, but the last few albums you can obviously hear some reaktor stuff going on, especially with the bass playing.

 

For some sounds at least, he says this in the SOS interview:

 

  Quote

I also used the Orville for the bass distortion on the record. I wanted to have unified tone for the album, so I developed some specific software patches to do the processing on the bass. The bass distortion on the track ‘Megazine’ was done with an old‑school 110V Morley Wah pedal and an Orville distortion patch based on a curve, X/Y‑mapping module. On the track ‘Abstract Lover’, I created a bass effect patch doing pitch‑shifting in the Orville and then going into a frequency divider/distortion patch in [Native Instruments’] Reaktor software.

kaydpea is right, and is not about a "super powerful cpu" in the hardware synthesizer, is about the computer cpu that needs to emulate all the synth circuits.

This people make really interesting sounding vsts, and some patches can blow up my computer: http://www.u-he.com/cms/

  On 4/16/2012 at 6:12 AM, capitan mission said:

kaydpea is right, and is not about a "super powerful cpu" in the hardware synthesizer, is about the computer cpu that needs to emulate all the synth circuits.

This people make really interesting sounding vsts, and some patches can blow up my computer: http://www.u-he.com/cms/

pretty much this. like i said earlier, FM8 can completely 100% duplicate a TX81z patch, you can even use patches direcly from the TX81z, exporting the .syx from the synth into FM8, and it's the same algorithm, and same sound, technically, sonically though, they're way different, FM8 is a lot more thin sounding in general because all you're doing is emulating the technique used to generate the sound and not emulating the actual physical components of the hardware. not all FM is equal. that said, i have no clue why hardware FM isn't up to FS1R standards today, i would bet anything if that synth were produced again it would sell, and sell well.

  On 4/16/2012 at 6:12 AM, capitan mission said:

kaydpea is right, and is not about a "super powerful cpu" in the hardware synthesizer, is about the computer cpu that needs to emulate all the synth circuits.

Well, software is pretty good at emulating complex (hardware) systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator

My guess is that the FS1R consists of a pretty standard CPU from 1998, a few controllers, some good DA converters and a whole lot of software.

  On 4/16/2012 at 6:12 AM, capitan mission said:

This people make really interesting sounding vsts, and some patches can blow up my computer: http://www.u-he.com/cms/

The VST you're linking to is emulating an analogue synth, and there's basically no limit to how much detail you can go into when emulating an analogue circuit - you could write software algorithms for each single transistor, cap, etc.

A big ass FM algorithm is a couple orders of magnitude less complex, I'd dare to say. I might be underestimating the FS1R, though.

  On 4/16/2012 at 5:37 AM, kaydpea said:

 

 

some of what i know is having the same equipment, a lot of what i know is from here: http://www.soundonso...cles/sqpshr.htm

 

what is that bullshit about him shunning his knack for writing melodies? how fucking stupid. dumb dumb dumb!

You guys fail to understand that ALL FM synths are completely digital. This means it's happening inside of a chip and is based on software. The thing that most likely makes the FS1R sound so good is the DA converters. That's literally the only part of that synth that could possibly be analog.

hardware ≠ analog all the time.

That's what I was saying, dude.

and I agree with you, dude.

:D

also they throw in some special magic DSP that is only possible to create with hardware synths and has nothing to do with software programming because they are two entirely different things, especially if you are talking about digital synthesizers, but I can't share the details as they are top secret.

FM can be analog or digital. you guys are talking about doing bass sounds. you can do FM bass with an analog synth. You CAN'T do DX Rhodes on analog synth

  On 4/17/2012 at 11:07 AM, slightlydrybeans said:

You guys fail to understand that ALL FM synths are completely digital. This means it's happening inside of a chip and is based on software. The thing that most likely makes the FS1R sound so good is the DA converters. That's literally the only part of that synth that could possibly be analog.

hardware ≠ analog all the time.

i was going to say it's probably the programming involved in the FS1R over the a/d converters

yes PSN, you are heavily underestimating the FS1R, a lot of people simply do not understand how a DIGITAL (not analog) synth from the mid 90s can still be more powerful sounding and nuanced than any FM synth today built in a computer. My guess is that a really good smart group of programmers were being a lot of money over the long term to figure this kind of stuff out. Unless someone today had a lot of money behind them or thought they could magically sell and make money off a new hardware FM synth with no knobs, the circumstances that lead to the FS1R's creation probably won;t exist.

All i know is that back then corporations with a lot of money were pouring a decent amount of it into research. The Yamaha VL1 is a stunning example of another Yamaha innovation that to this day (15 years later) it has not been beaten. No other synth has come close to the VL1's ability to emulate physical wind and brass instruments. Not Tassman, not Logic's Sculpture, not Reaktor, not Kyma. Nothing, the thing will probably remain untouchable for another decade to come.

My main argument was that it would be possible to emulate the FS1R in software on a modern computer without overloading the CPU. Doing the actual reverse engineering might still be non-trivial.