Talk:Synthesizer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please use proper colors for ADSR images

The red and green colors could be more distinct, the way the are chosen the resemble a color vision test, please increase the contrast, or simply use RGB=255,0,0 for red and RGB=0,255,0 for green. Much easier to see. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.130.205 (talk) 06:54, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The content of this article was moved from page titled Synthesizer

The Synthesizer page will become a disambiguation page. --Mike Sorensen 09:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Types of synthesis

First problem: "There are three main types of synthesizers: analog, digital and software."

It's a problem because:

1. "Digital" could mean both hardware and software. A better categorization would be "Analog vs digital" and "Hardware vs software".

2. Analog, digital, hardware and software aren't synthesis types, they're architecture types.

Second problem: "In addition, some synthesizers rely upon combinations of these three types and are known as hybrid synthesizers."

It's a problem because the word "hybrid" could be used to describe any combination of attributes that aren't routinely combined, e.g. "Wavetable+FM" or "Additive+sampling". It's not limited to analog+digital or hardware+software. It seems that the author is trying to create a new phrase here.

Third problem: The "synthesis types" listed are: Wavetable, Physical modeling, Digital, Fingerboard, Software.

It's a problem because only the first two are actually synthesis types. Digital and software are architectures. Fingerboard is a method of playing.

A list of actual synthesis types could include: Subtractive, Additive, Frequency modulation, Phase distortion, Wavetable, Granular, Physical modelling...

Descriptions of architecture and methods of playing should be moved to separate sections. E.g. one could create the section "Control mechanisms" and put information about keyboards and ribbon controllers there, possibly together with even more exotic stuff like MIDI guitars and the AudioCubes.

I see that "subharmonic synthesis" has been added to the list of synthesis methods; however, this is an unrelated audio technique found in amplifiers and mastering tools, and is not used as the sound synthesis method in any synthesizer. I suggest it be removed from the list. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Too much technicalities, too little about cultural influence!

This article is very singel minded IMO, it almost only brings up the technical aspects synthesizers, and there is almost nothing to be found about how the synthesizer has affected the music scene etc! 84.217.135.167 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

---How can you relate that in a single article??? Each syntesizer had it's own influence on the music scene... You can't talk about synthesizers without talking about technical aspects.

--Maybe more pertinently - what is the point of the "Sound basics" section?

I uploaded an image of the Kawai K5000S synthesizer to the "Synthesizer Basics" section. This is only to illustrate what a basic synthesizer, or commonly, keyboard, appears as in the field of music. It may clear up confusion early on in the article. Also, the K5000S is the first in that series of synthesizers made by Kawai. Some of it's advanced features are additive synthesis, formant modeling and MIDI. Unitystudios (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kawai additive synth 'K' series started with the K5, which came out in '88 or '89. It was not a great commercial success, due to the cumbersone user interface. But it was clearly the basis for the later K5000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.246.199 (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Photograph

Although "sweet", is the photograph of the child playing with the Yamaha really necessary/appropriate? Perhaps it might be better to replace it with either a shot of a classic synth, a modern synth, or maybe something in between (such a modern Moog)? Just a thought. michaelb 18:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

That "synthesizer" looks like a toy. Judging by the portion of the instrument which is visible in the photo, it looks more like an electronic keyboard than a synthesizer. The caption doesn't include a model number. I agree: a well-known classic Moog, Roland, or Yamaha synth would be better. --Trweiss 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I put back the DX7 that was replaced in July 2005. --Trweiss 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In all actuality sir, the synth the child was playing with is no toy, but rather a Yamaha MU-15 Tone Generator synth module, with some info here: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MU15/ - MegaKitsune 10:26, 28, January 2006

I don't know what photo the above discussion refers to, but the Yamaha PSR=295 currently depicted is NOT a synthesiser by any stretch of the definition but an entry-level home keyboard. A much better choice for a representative instrument would be any of the following;

Minimoog Prophet-5 Yamaha DX-7 Yamaha CS-80 Korg Triton Roland D-50 Moog Voyager

-- butterfingersbeck

Physical model(l)ing synthesis

Physical modeling synthesis/Physical modelling synthesis-- both appear to be correct spellings and are widely used. Anyone know if one is standard?

modeling is american english, modelling is <ahem> proper (UK) english ;-)

On another note, there already exists a section on digital synthesizer, which I edited recently... do we want that one merged into here, or simply link it? -- ND

Formant?

Is formant really the right word to use in this article to describe sound components? All of my synthesizers refer to them as partials or oscillators, and formant is more commonly used to describe the filtering performed by the resonances of the vocal tract. I don't think I've ever heard formant used like this before. -- Tlotoxl 02:11, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Decide for yourselves:

formant = a spectral peak in an absolute frequency region

harmony = a tone produced on a stringed instrument by lightly touching an open or stopped vibrating string at a given fraction of its length so that both segments vibrate. Also called overtone, partial, partial tone

oscillator is the word I've seen most overall

sugarfish 05:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

the term "formant synthesizer" is found in more than 800 matches on Google. here are but a few...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021008154046.17677.00000083%40mb-fl.aol.com

http://lorien.die.upm.es/research/documentation/articuloJuanaEurospeech2001.PDF

http://www.mindspring.com/~ssshp/ssshp_cd/ss_melp.htm

waveguy

In all three of those cases (and most of the rest as well), 'formant' was referring either to the synthesis of speech or to the use of a formant filter to give speech-like characteristics, as in the case of the FS1R. 'Formant' is not the term used to refer to the oscillators or partials of a synthesizer. -- 211.123.199.32 12:41, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• • I work a lot with sound modeling and musical signal processing, and from this POV, a spectral peak is not usually a "formant" -- rather, a formant (coming from the literature in speech processing) generally refers to a more global characteristic: local maxima in a sound's spectral envelope. For more on spectral envelopes, check papers from conferences such as ICASSP, WASPAA, DAFx, ICMC, etc. or just search Google, which is much easier ;). Hope this helps. 70.55.67.66 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Reich and E-mu

I think that listing Steve Reich as being associated with the Yamaha DX-7 is slightly odd. The DX-7 was the most popular synth of the mid to late 80s and was used by literally everybody.

Also, listing the E-mu Emulator I as a classic synth is also a bit odd.

sugarfish 05:52, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing lists of "users" altogether. TheScotch 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

ARP link

I don't know much about ARP other than that is is an 1970's synthesizer, but the link in the article refers to Adress Resolution Protocol which is something completely different. How can one add another definition?

ARP stands for Alan Robert Pearlman, who was the original creator of ARP Instruments Inc. There actually is a link to ARP Instruments Inc. on this site.

Toshiba as a synthesizer manufacturer?

A recent (anonymous) addition of Toshiba under commercial manufacturers surprises me. Can someone cite example(s)? --Ds13 02:18, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

I searched around a bit, and couldn't find anything. Maybe it should be deleted. michaelb 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Also the mention of a "Yamaha CS2" in the list of synthesizers is probably an error. There is a CS2X - part of the recent CS1X/CS2X/CS6X line - but they are by no means important instruments. The old CS lines (CS-5/10/15/30, CS-20M/40M, and polyphonic CS-60/70/80) are worthy of inclusion in the list, especially the CS-80.

Samplers and Sampling

This bit:

Sampling started out as the purview of academic researchers with access to mainframe computers. The appearance of the Fairlight CMI in 1979, the first well-known digital instrument capable of sampling, started a revolution. The Fairlight was used on scores of popular recordings by artists such as Jean Michel Jarre, Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel and The Art of Noise. The costly, complex and rare Fairlight (and an equally costly competitor, the New England Digital Synclavier) caused California company E-mu to introduce their Emulator I in 1981, a lower-cost sampling keyboard which could save sound recordings to floppy disk. Ensoniq followed suit in 1985 with an even lower-cost sampling keyboard, the Ensoniq Mirage, which cost about $1,500 USD compared to the $7,900 USD price tag of the Emulator I.

By 1984, Raymond Kurzweil, on suggestion from Stevie Wonder, created the first synthesizer that could duplicate the sounds of orchestral instruments. It was based on recorded samples of actual instruments. Trained conductors and musicians were incapable of distinguishing the Kurzweil synthesizer from the real thing.

...belongs in the sampler article. It has nothing to do with synthesis.

The sampling section in this article should be expanded to describe PCM synthesis. Though, as the preview states, the line between sampling and synthesis are blurred, it is still there. Synthesis means creating/generating a sound. Sampling is recording and playing back a sound.

--Trweiss 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the line between synthesis and sampling is so blurred, I do not think it is possible to give an extensive overview of synthesis techniques without mentioning samplers. See also the article on wavetable synthesis. Huddie.klein (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge musical keyboard into this article

I suggest that musical keyboard be merged into this article, since the two articles seem to be of the same subject, albeit with a slightly different focus.

Perhaps "musical keyboard" is a more intuitive title than "synthesizer", but this article seems better established and has far more content so that's why I suggest that this article's title retained and the other becomes a redirect. Thoughts? --Qirex 09:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree. This article is not the place for discussion of the layout and history of the musical keyboard; musical keyboard should not redirect to synthesizer. Similarly the musical keyboard article is not the place to discuss the synthesizer, which is just a specific example of a musical instrument that (sometimes, and not necessarily) employs a keyboard in its design, and which was not developed until the 20th century; synthesizer should not redirect to musical keyboard. Therefore they are two different subjects and should have separate articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to add to RobertG's answer, except my strong agreement. These are two completely different subjects. No merging, redirecting or disambiguating should be done. EldKatt (Talk) 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, normally I would allow this kind of thing a day or two, but by the looks of this, I doubt there will be many, if any, users who agree that a merge should take place. So I'll remove the tags and sit back down, looking awfully sheepish no doubt. --Qirex 13:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

it´s not good to call synthesizers a "musical keyboard". keyboard is just a synthesizer controller and has nothing to do with audio synthesis, it´s just the most common controller. Just look at the Buchla synthesizers, buchla himself was totally against keyboard controllers because of it´s limitations. Synthesizers are devices that create electronic sounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Golafs (talk • contribs) 03:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence (definition of synthesizer)

Re: "A synthesizer (or synthesiser) is an electronic musical instrument designed to produce electronically generated sound, using techniques such as additive, subtractive, FM, physical modelling synthesis, phase distortion, or Scanned synthesis.":

It seems to me that the first half of this sentence is too broad (after all, a Farfisa organ is "an electronic musical instrument designed to produce electronically generated sound") and the second half is too narrow and technical. I'd replace it with a sound (so to speak) definition, such as: A synthesizer is a collection of electronic devices that modify or manipulate an electronically generated musical tone or sound source. TheScotch 11:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: "A synthesizer is an electronic device that generates, modifies and/or manipulates electronically generated sounds for musical purposes.":

Someone replaced my rewriting of the opening sentence with the above.

1) You may wish to consult Donald Hall's Writing Well or a similar work about the construction and/or; it does not belong in non-legal prose.

2) Collection (or some synonym) is essential to the definition. Modular synthesizers are obvious collections, but synthesizers housed in one box, such as the MiniMoog and the A.R.P. 2600, are no less collections of distinct devices. The above definition would make a single device, such as a filter, an envelope follower, a wah-wah pedal, a fuzz pedal, and so on, a synthesizer in itself, and I think the absurdity of calling a fuzz pedal, for example, a synthesizer should be readily apparant.

For these reasons, I've (manually) reverted the replacement. TheScotch 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: A synthesizer is an electronic musical instrument wich produces sound through the proces of sound synthesis. It would probably be best to dedicate a separate page to the various sound synthesis techniques mentioned. (additive, subtractive, FM, physical modelling, phase distortion, granular, sampling etc.)

I think this article should concentrate on the history of synthesizers, this would allow us to both address it's cultural impact as describe the various technological developments like analoge, digital and software. Huddie.klein (talk) 14:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

First paragraph

Re: "Synthesizers typically have a keyboard which provides the human interface to the instrument and are often thought of as keyboard instruments.":

I don't see that there is anything more human about a keyboard than there is about a fader or knob. The keyboard, rather, "provides" a pitch controller reminiscent of (certain) traditional musical instruments. TheScotch 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about: "Synthesizers typically have a keyboard which provides the main performance interface to the instrument and are often thought of as keyboard instruments." Colin OOOD 12:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That is very good. I would add: "some analoge and almost all digital synthesizers also provide a Midi-interface and can be played with MIDI_controllers."Huddie.klein (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DX7 envelope inaccuracy

In the "newly added" section on the history of FM synthesis, in discussing the envelopes on the GS and the DX7, it is said, "Interestingly, what became the DX7's 4-stage ADSR at that time actually had many break points....about 75..." If my memory serves, having owned a DX7 and a DX7-IIFD, the envelope, while certainly not a 75-stage, is significantly more complex than an 4-stage ADSR. It is a baselevel-attack-decay-breakpoint-sustain-release envelope, with settable levels for base level (sorry if that's not the right nomenclature, but I mean to signify the level before striking a key and after its release and decay), attack level, break point level, and sustain level. There are time settings for attack time, initial decay time, break decay time, and release time.

The addition of a non-zero base level, an attack level, and the break point level and break point decay, make for an envelope that is both more flexible and useful, and harder to understand, than an ADSR. In my opinion it is, along with FM in general and with the sparse user interface, one of the contributors to this synthesizer's status at the time as "a synth you buy voice cartridges for, because it's too hard to program," in contrast to the analog synths of the time.

69.207.168.214 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Peter Puleo

This kind of detail definitely belongs on a page dedicated to the DX7. Huddie.klein (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Magical Musical Thing

I'm trying to figure out whether a certain stick-like musical keyed instrument, cranked out by Mattel in the late seventies and early eighties with colorful looking buttons as keys, called a "Magical Musical Thing" or MMT for short, was a synthesizer or an electronic organ. Three million of those were reportedly made; my family once owned one of those; it is generally advertised on Ebay as being "rare" with prices apparently in the $10-20 range; it apparently is easy to break and its sounds are apparently pure, high pitched sounds that don't warble (I'm hard of hearing, so don't take my word for it). There is a roughly triangle-shaped speaker at one end of the instrument, and it is battery powered. I would like to see if anyone can dig up a history of that toy - and, of course, whether it can be classified as a synthesizer or an electronic mini-organ. Rickyrab | Talk 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Style of article

I would like to confirm what the tag says, and point out that this article is currently too technical for most readers. Some of the information will make perfect sense to people who are familiar with how synths work, but may come across as meaningless to people who are not experts. The article could use a rewrite that reflects this. Also, some more images would help.--Ianmacm 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Early work by Sherwin Gooch

While it wasn't a commercial product, Sherwin Gooch's early work with the GSW (Gooch Synthetic Woodwind) around 1974, and the GCS (Gooch Cybernetic Synthesizer) around 1976, seems worth mentioning in the discussion of the history. I don't know if each of these was the earliest of its type, but if not the very first I would expect it to be close. The GSW was a four-voice computer controlled synthesizer, and the GCS a 16-voice PCM synthesizer. The GCS also came with a pressure-sensitive keyboard, which I suspect may also have been rather an early specimen of the type. All this was part of the PLATO project. Paul Koning 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Synthesizer Template?

I'd like to propose some sort of Synthesizer template. I was looking to add specs to the Roland XP-30 page and realized it would make more sense to have something preformatted for this, since the info is applicable to all product-specific synth pages, no? Check the XP-30 page to see what I come up with...Yuletide 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The article on the Roland D-50 has a better structure. Huddie.klein (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and disambiguation of the opening paragraph

I re-wrote the opening paragraph to clarify what the synthesizer is and to provide the distinction between musical and scientific synthesizers. Comments are welcome. --Mike Sorensen 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Scientific" is a slightly odd term because the users of those devices wouldn't call them that. Also, as a matter of style, shouldn't this sort of distinction be made on a disambiguation page? In other words, have the article here be "music synthesizers" and the other be "synthesizers (measurement)" and then "synthesizers" is a disambiguation page that points to these? Paul Koning 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, the disambiguation page is probably more appropriate so I just created one. --Mike Sorensen 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

There is the "disambiguation" problem; there is the problem that "Music synthesizers can create an electrical signal needed to drive and play audio amplifiers" is nowhere near sufficient to describe the musical instrument called a synthesizer; and there is the problem that the other two definitions are not substantiated and sound to me extremely questionable. Moreover, since synthetic, synthesis, and synthesize, were all common English words long before the RCA Electronic Music Synthesizer, the Siemens Synthesizer, and the Moog modular synthesizer, there is no need to go directly and immediately to the Greek cognate. To synthesize is to build up out of component parts, as it its antonym to analyze is to break down into component parts. This is why synthesizers are necessarily collections of electronic devices. As I've already pointed out (there was no need to create a new discussion section concerning the first or "opening" paragraph or opening sentence when these already existed), a Farfisa organ "[creates] an electrical signal needed to drive and play audio amplifiers", and obviously a Farfisa organ is not a synthesizer. TheScotch 07:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some parts of your statement.

I agree that the definition of a music synthesizer could be improved, so please feel free to make changes. I just added the disambig page so I will move the other two definitions to the appropriate pages. Yes, there was no need to create another heading so if you feel so strongly about it please feel free to move my comments to the appropriate section and please drop me a line on my user page after you do that. --Mike Sorensen 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to disagree on the following points: 1. The Greek "syntithenai" is the direct root for the word synthesizer and gives a full context and connotation to the meaning of "putting things together", however I believe that you are misunderstanding the application of this word. It applies to the synthesizer's function and not its structure. The synthesizer is a device to "put things together" and not a device put together from things (though this may also be true ;). 2. A synthesizer can be entirely encapsulated in just one integrated circuit so it does not have to be composed of separate devices, unless of course you want to brake apart the IC then any electronics apparatus is a collection of devices. Furthermore a simple, single circuit oscillator is a very primitive form of a synthesizer. 3. And "YES" Farfisa organ is a form of a synthesizer. --Mike Sorensen 09:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

De-spam

Removed links that smell like spam; your mileage may vary. Jafet 09:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a "Link Farm" tag ({{linkfarm}} ). This article has too many. Jrod2 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

FM Synthesis/Yamaha

I've added a "this section is too long" tag to this section, because it is too long, I'm also dubious about whether that's original research or not, and by the looks of it most of it should be covered in frequency modulation synthesis rather than here. Perhaps this article should merely provide a brief overview as opposed to an article-sized section, what do you think? - Zeibura S. Kathau ^{(Info | Talk)} 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The information, though vast and very detailed, belongs in the Frequency Modulation Synthesis page. perhaps a short synopsis of the section and addition of other examples of FM synthesis (such as the Yamaha TG 33 and the Korg Wave Station). Haikudeathmatch 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Most of the FM/Yamaha information in that section can be cut, the remainder summarized and preferably merged into the Yamaha Corporation page, not the Frequency modulation synthesis page, which is short and sweet and definitely to the point. While I can understand the tendency to cover every type of synthesis used by synthesizers in this article, it is impractical to do so since there are numerous existing pages which already deal with synthesis types. A simple summary (two to four sentences for all the types of synthesis) with links to those pages would be ideal. Indeed, most of the types of synthesis are already linked in this article—so why the lengthy explanations and devoted sections? Redundancy should be avoided when it is covered elsewhere. Lastly, (sorry, the pedant in me is squirming) the Korg Wavestation is not an FM Synth, although it shares a common synthesis type with Yamaha's TG33, SY22, and SY55 keyboards using vector synthesis, which originated from Sequential Circuits' Prophet VS.  :) JordanSealy 09:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Should it not at least be mentioned that Yamaha in fact uses Phase Modulation, not Frequency Modulation, in its DX line of synthesizers? They called it FM for marketing purposes, but that's no reason for an encyclopaedia to use an incorrect description. 84.198.246.199 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Small ADSR schematic note

The paragraph says that to imitate natural sounds, ADSR shifts are usually exponential growth/decay curves. But the schematic diagram to the right has linear curves. There is a somewhat rougher, but more exponentialish diagram available at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/23/ADSR-Envelope_Generator.gif if people agree to use that instead.

Modified first paragraph, and wondering about some others

(I'm new here, please remember WP:BITE - revert if you must, but don't call me names...) - I felt the first paragraph was somewhat confusing and misleading, so I made some modifications. I'm also wondering how exactly software synthesis differs from digital synthesis? Both are using computer software - one is running on a bigger computer is all. ;-) I grant that there should be a article about software synthesis, and I may take a stab at it if no one else does, but I don't really think it deserves a category of it's own when describing types of synth - it's really a subcategory of digital synth in my opinion. Sheer panic 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg

Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of article

The article is in poor condition at the moment. It reads like a hotchpotch of unconnected paragraphs when it needs to have a clear structure. It could also use some inline citations, as many of the statements are unsourced. Please help if you have the knowledge and the time. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing/misleading introduction

From the introduction: "Music synthesizers sometimes include a keyboard, which makes them reminiscent of certain traditional musical instruments, like a piano or an organ. Various alternative or additional pitch controllers, such as fingerboards and "ribbons", have been employed as well. (See sound module.)" Why does it say "see sound module"? I would think it should link to an article on controllers, not synths, so that the reader can read about the "various alternative pitch controllers" that exist. Henre (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg

Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The worst quality article on Wikipedia?

This is the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia. It's full of waffle, not properly referenced and blatantly inaccurate in many important areas. It's a disgrace. For example:

"PCM-sound is obtainable even with a 1-bit system, but the sound is terrible with mostly noise, as there are only two levels, on and off (for example, the MS Windows PC Speaker Driver[1] allows to play a WAV file by only switching on and off quickly the simple built-in beep speaker). Since the beginning of PCM synthesis (<1970), almost all number of bits from 1 to 32 have been used, but today the most common ones are 16 and 24bits, going towards 32bits as the next jump up in quality."

This typifies the sort of exercise in hoodwinking and inaccurate pseudo-science that this article has been used for. People you need to get it into your heads that sound synthesis is a matter of science, and being a 14-year fan of 'electronic music' or a 'DJ' who has done a half-assed search about synthesis with Google doesn't qualify you in any way to comment. If you don't know or you're not sure, DON'T include it in the article. --Zubedar (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the worst quality article, I can think of several others that are much, much worse, but I agree that it is in dire need of quality attention. Personally, I'd recommend scrapping the article entirely and beginning again. How many people would that piss off?JordanSealy (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Having had a quick read through this, I can say this article is pretty poor. The lead paragraphs are confusing, and later in the article there is a mix of stuff, mostly waffle. Large sections are not linked at all, and, obviously, there is a huge lack of references. If it were my decision, I would scrap it and start over - but I am sure that would annoy a few people. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have re-written the lead, but it's only a start. The lead still needs working on. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This lede is much, much better. Good work! And most of the unnecessary stuff has been moved elsewhere. There is hope for this article yet. JordanSealy (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

One thing that should get some attention is the classification of synthesisers (sorry, British spelling :) ). 'Analogue', 'digital' and 'software' is inaccurate at best. There's cross-overs, like the early eighties synths with DCOs and analogue filter sections. And what is the real distinction between a virtual analogue like the AN1x, and a software package? Surely, virtual analogues are closer to a software package than they are to a DX7. The real problem is that the package and the synthesis method are thrown together in a heap. SeverityOne (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As a generalization, it is accurate to define the three as digital, analog and software. The article explains later on the various types and hybrid synths. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A big THANKS to Wackymacs! :-) The entry is looking so much better. The quality issue has been resolved in my view. The main problems were inaccuracies and waffle, and a general disorderliness, but this has been fixed as far as I'm concerned. --Zubedar (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Synthesizer by A. Fillebrown

It must be mentioned as "...an electronic instrument capable of producing a wide variety of sounds by generating and combining signals of different frequencies...". Commator (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's you who needs to discuss why your link is desired and needed on the article. We don't just put links for our own personal reasons. If you want me to be more specific read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1, #8 and #13. Jrod2 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

But where is your reasons why this synthesizer is not synthesizer? And why do you wish to name my contribution as vandalism? It is only link, which must be good for other readers on synthesizers. Your removing of it without detailed explanations seems closer to vandalism. Please explain your intolerance to my modest contribution? Commator (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Commator, the purpose that your external link attempts to demonstrate is NOT accessible (read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #8) and appropriate to the article (read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #13. The subject is "Synthesizers" not virtual ones, virtual synthesis or experimental music instruments. Make your own article about it. If doesn't get Proded by someone, then you are home free. If you don't want to do that, try writing a whole section about that subject instead. Jrod2 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Jrod2, my link is not the mentioned one at WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #8, because it is not direct link to documents that require external applications. It is only entrance to site where reader can decide what to do with content. The article also has section Software synthesizer. It describes quite similar ones which use Andy. So virtual synth by Andy is software one and has direct relation to the article. I don't understand why do you try to apply WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #13 to my link? So I'm finding my link is quite such, as mentioned at WP:EL#What should be linked. I would be glad if you restore it. Commator (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Commator: External links need to relate specifically to the article (hence why there are so few links there). Please leave the External links section for valuable research content, and not spam links. — Wackymacs (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wackymacs, please explain how the word "spam" relates to my attempt of contribution. Also why my link is not relate specifically to the article. Commator (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just chime in here... Commator, the link doesn't add anything to the article at all. It really and truly and properly doesn't belong on this page. As you've already been advised, consider including it in a different article. That's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.JordanSealy (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to agree. I don't see how this link relates to this article about synthesizers in general at all. In fact, I too would venture out to say it may be considered a spam link in that it promotes the work Mr. A. Fillebrown. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider my link as it was added:

Virtual synthesizer by Andy Fillebrown works like the ANS but with 3D CAD drawings, which he name Audiosculptures.

It have explanation that this software synth works with 3D CAD drawings. Where in the article is information on this type of software synths? And why link to non-commercial site is promotion? All his works are available for free and they are only examples to demonstrate unique aspects of CAD synth. Commator (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, No. Why is it so important to you that this link is added? This is an encyclopedia, and therefore external links need to have a certain level of credibility and reliability. — Wackymacs (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Commator, please. No one is saying that one can't link to non-commercial sites. But when when several users are telling you that your proposed external link inclusion is not specific enough, pay attention, or you'll only draw unnecessary attention to yourself. If you feel that strong about this type of "synth" write your own article. Jrod2 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

By other words the reader of general article on synthesizers must have not full information on types of them, and one who wish to add such information must be thrown out on his neck. Maybe somebody else explain why this synth is "synth"? Jrod2 and other opponents don't wish to do this. Commator (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He did say that you can write your own article on it... — Wackymacs (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Commator, Obviously you don't know how Wikipedia works. Play by the rules and stop being stubborn about this. Here is what you should do: Look at the article page, do you see a "Modular Synthesizer" section? And, there is also a "See Also" section that has a wiki link to a modular synthesizer article? Well, that's how you get your synth technology or gadget included. Write an article about this gadget, then create a section with its own description on the Synthesizer article. Create a wiki link to this new article in the "See Also" section. Finally, add your external link, not to the Synthesizer article, but to your "new gadget's article" (Create an external link section). This does not guarantee you anything; editors can still revert or delete, but maybe they won't think that your contributions are geared to promote a name, a site or to spam Wikipedia. Jrod2 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good work happening here

Earlier this month, Wackymacs asked me to take a look at this article and participate in its redevelopment. I was happy to give my impressions, but wasn't able to help out in working on it. Well. All I can say is that this is a completely different article than it was only a few weeks ago, immensely improved. Very good work, everyone! Risker (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Gary Numan!

I don't know about the Gary Numan reference in the "Impact on the music industry and culture" section. I don't think a musician who is essentially a footnote in electronic influenced music deserves even an entire sentence. And the influence of Kraftwerk and Brian Eno on popular music appears underestimated. And this statement doesn't even make sense: "The most significant influence of the instrument came during the 1970s and 1980s". Has that person even heard the pop music played on the radio today? It's mostly synthesized. Oh I'll have to look at it later when I have time, unless someone else does it first. ClarenceAtomkraft (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote that section—you're welcome to expand it. As you can see, the impact section is not complete. As for Gary Numan, almost all of his music has been synthesizer-based, and therefore that alone makes him notable and influential, in addition to the fact several of his songs were hits. It is important to remember that not only large bands had an influence, and the smaller artists are notable even if they were not as commercially successful. There's nothing new about the use of synthesizers in current music (though obviously the 90s/2000s should be mentioned). The 70s and 80s were the first decades when the synthesizer had impact on popular music. Before then, pop music didn't use the instrument at all. Today, most songs do - which is nothing special. As I said, please feel free to expand on the section, keeping in mind WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE. Thanks! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 12:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot I wrote this. There were so many different musicians who influenced synthesized popular music that it's difficult to accurately state their influence without writing a huge separate article. I'll certainly have a think about it though. Numan's hits do mark a point in pop history when the synthesizer ceased to be an experimental instrument, or used as a mere musical backdrop. ClarenceAtomkraft (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

syntheszed music (in section, popular)

"The first movie to make use of synthesized music was the James Bond film On Her Majesty's Secret Service in 1969. After the release of the film, a large number of movies were made with synthesized music. A few of them, such as 1982's John Carpenter's "The Thing", used only synthesized music in their scores.[12]"

"On Her Majesty" was NOT the first movie to use synthesized music (maybe the first to use moog synthesizer??) 1965 film "forbidden planet" had f. ex all-electronic music score. Theremin (synthesizer, right?) had been used as early as 1945, in film "Spellbound".

maybe "on her Majesty" was the first movie to use standard Synthesizer w. Keyboard (moog, roland, yamaha etc.)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. okinawa (talk • contribs) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

the thing (in section popular)

...also noticed this: "A few of them, such as 1982's John Carpenter's "The Thing", used only synthesized music in their scores.[12]"

well, this is on of few carpenter movies that actually did not have synthesizer music. He did the music for most of his films using electronics but the score to "the Thing" was an Orchestral score by Ennio Morricone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. okinawa (talk • contribs) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Synthpop and Followers

Correct me if I'm not misstaken. Synthpop was influensed by Kraftwerk (a German band) And it was supposed to die after 80's. But Synthpop isn't dead at all. They are still making more and more of the same genre.

Allso theres supposed to be a style called Synth which allmost looks like cybergoth or cyberpunk. Someone please see if this statement is right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.78.250 (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Howto make a simple synth

An external link to an article on how to build your own synth seems appropriate & relevant. I've changed the link to go straight to the article.--Nmcclana (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not trying to sell anything here - it's a link to a PDF tutorial. Please discuss before removing again. --Nmcclana (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't meet WP:EL, and the number of links being made to this particular site by one account smacks of conflict of interest. Please do not restore. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NPA, my editing history has nothing to do with creating a quality article. Hosting a PDF isn't exactly a COI, especially when the pdf is simply instructions to build a home made synth. That said, do any other editors think there's enough value in adding instructions on building a synth in the EL section? Is this different than how an article on bread would have a link to a bread recipe? --Nmcclana (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the history is all wrong

the monkees? honestly? talk about a totally ignorant low brow boomer-centric view of music history! synthesizers were widely used in experimental "classical" music when the monkees were digesting pablum. can i request that somebody with some authority profoundly rewrite the history section, or remove it altogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.121.196 (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that synthesizers' use in academic settings and by the contemporary electronic composers of the time (Milton Babbitt, Morton Subotnick, etc.) should be mentioned before the Monkees, though the Monkees' use does mark the first use for a pop music act. What I think is another glaring omission is the use of synths in Disco, and later in Funk/Soul. Though Stevie Wonder is mentioned by name, others like Giorgio Moroder (particularly with Donna Summer's "I Feel Love") aren't mentioned at all. synthfiend (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

crazy selection

What is going on with this article? Why is demo mode anything to do with synths? And why is a synth pad mentioned, let alone have a special section. It is all out of whack. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the trouble stems from the lack of differentiation from the synthesizer instrument and the creation of music using a synthesizer. Since there has been an explosion of software synthesizer simulations I came here to see if there was any further info on them. There is not, so I may add some info to that effect. It may be good to create an another entire article based on synthesizer music as an offshoot of this one, reducing the confusion. It may then provide budding artists with the understanding of types and structures (such as lead, bass and pads) without complicating the definition of the instrument. Rhomboid Turner (talk) 00:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Inverted ADSR clarification needed

I'm confused by the paragraph that discusses inverted ADSR. The text implies that the instrument is psychic, playing a note at full volume even before its key is pressed, and then continuing to play it forever when the key is released. Additionally, the text says "some" instruments have this feature without giving any examples. I think further clarification and explanation is needed Mandolamus (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Additive synthesis is also the principle of Wavetable synthesis" ???

On its own (i.e. without explanation of exactly what is meant) I think that this statement is confusing and quite possibly misleading. Wavetables store all kinds of waveforms, some are for adding to each other to produce a composite sound (= additive synthesis) some are not (does not = additive synthesis). I would suggest that it is deleted. Jezwells (talk)

String synthesizers

Under "Typical Roles", there's no entry for string synthesizers. There's not even an article on the subject here, and there should be. Dementia13 (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually think the entire history section is way heavy on the early experimental synthesizers. That is fine, but what's odd is that synthesizer history is strikingly light after the 1970s when the synthesizer becomes a commercial market.
In addition to nothing on string synthesizers and other divide-down synthesizers (other than a mention of the Novachord), there's nothing much on the polyphonic analog subtractive in the early 1980s, nothing on the early 1980s FM digitals (eg Fairlight CMI, Synclavier, and especially the Yamaha DX7), nothing on the commercial PCM synthesis starting in the late 1980s (notables include the Korg M1 and Roland D50), nothing on hardware sampling, nothing on synthesizer rhythm machines (both those using subtractive synthesis eg TR-808, sample-based (LinnDrum etc.), and sampling-based eg Akai S2000 etc), nothing on virtual analog (Clavia Nord Lead onward) and other notable synthesizers that employed modeling techniques (eg one could mention the Yamaha VL1 here as a noted example that modeled an acoustic instrument instead of an electronic circuit), and finally nothing on the rise of the software synthesizer (which has been around since the early days of computing -- eg CSound -- but has been popularized in the 2000s - 2010s due to digital audio workstation APIs that allow tight integration -- VST, AU, etc. -- and the tremendous computing and storage power modern computers offer).
(Well, VSTs are mentioned, but its merely a confusing brief that makes it seem like all VSTs can do is emulate classic hardware "to a moderate degree", which is *hardly* all they can do!)
Instead of the *instruments*, we have a focus on synthpop and progressive artists -- even here, few artists are mentioned after the 1980s (probably because there would be too many of them, but the cutoff date is strange).
IMHO it would be best not to list a zillion synthpop artists. Instead, simply link to major umbrella genres which are often mostly or wholly created around the synthesizer -- eg synthpop, electronic dance, downtempo / ambient, urban contemporary music, etc. -- as well as genres where the synthesizer played a prominent role, such as progressive rock.
Yes, some of these concepts / instruments that aren't in the history are mentioned in a scatterbrain fashion in other places, but I find the approach not very cohesive overall.
As far as the "typical roles" section, I find that a bit odd too... there's too many typical roles that I see missed. Special effect sounds, rhythm elements (TR-808 style BD kicks and much more), and sampled elements (loops and rhythms, imitative, etc.) are all missed. --Soundwave106 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What are some good published sources of information on the synthesizer history?Vam drainpipe (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: Several years ago, I've reconstructed section structure and newly created "Typical roles" section. And then, I've recognized that "Synth pad" section may potentially cover the vintage string synthesizer topics. best, --Clusternote (talk) 11:10, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"Though it had no sound synthesis function, some have erroneously called it the first synthesizer."?

I'm confused by this line, in particular, the accompanying explanation of how Gray's machine produced sound and the statement that it did not produce sound... What? The citations do not reference an explanation of the title of "the first synthesizer" being erroneous, but in fact, are both sources that bestow the title of "the first synthesizer" to Gray's invention. Reference to the title as erroneous seems to be an opinion, with no support. Perhaps the word "debatably" would be more fitting. 23.25.36.149 (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Maya Zimmerman

The statement is that "it had no sound synthesis function" (a hyphen is missing in the unit modifier, which does not help in understanding the meaning). This means that Gray's machine, as a single-frequency oscillator, was essentially a type of telegraph—that is, the tone was simply a carrier for information communicated by its periodic interruption. As such, the tone was musically meaningless, and it is therefore incorrect to call it a synthesizer.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Why does Sound Synthesis redirect here?

"Sound Synthesis" is about creating a new sound from individual elements or abstract entities. It's about the many different processes and techniques that can be used to create sound.

"Synthesizer" is a general class of tool used to make (synthesize) sound. Generally a "synthesizer" can be a physical device or software. When it is a physical device it normally looks like this or this. Normally a "Synthesizer" uses a limited number of techniques to produce a certain range of sounds. Generally any "synthesizer" device will only be able create a small subset of all sounds that it is possible to synthesize.

I strongly believe "sound synthesis" should not redirect to "Synthesizer".

Vam drainpipe (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree with user Vam drainpipe, that sound synthesis should be an article of its own to which this article links. The sound synthesis material can stand on its own as theory, regardless of its implementation, while this article can be about the devices physical and virtual; what they are, their history, various examples, influence, etc. without being bogged down by the more technical nuts and bolts. For example, a particular synth referred to in this article might be indicated to be built on the principles of "additive synthesis" and that would be a link to the sound synthesis article paragraph on additive synthesis. The general heading in this article "Types of Sound Synthesis" could then just have the statement: "See main article on sound synthesis" below the heading, with the appropriate link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.126.48 (talk) 14:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

So, if we have consensus on this, we can either delete the redirect or we can leave it as it is until someone has the wherewithal to create a Sound synthesis article. I don't think you'd find much support at WP:RFD to delete the redirect. I don't feel so strongly about this. I think with some work, this article can cover synthesis and synthesizers. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Very Poorly Written Article

I'm not surprised this article is no longer featured - the beginning sections (the first third or so) were/are in a terrible shape. While it's great that anyone can and should contribute to wikipedia, it's important to remember that the quality of an article also depends on its readability and by extension the quality of its English. Most of this page reads like a poorly translated synthesizer manual (remember those). I wonder if some of those contributing to this article would not be better served contributing to the synthesizer articles in their own language and getting someone else to handle the translations into English. At the very least, the English needs serious proofreading. What this article definitely doesn't need is more poorly worded information being added; it needs to be reworked to a professional standard of English, so please keep that in mind before contributing!

Furthermore, the article contained several sections that are incomprehensible, and I've liberally deleted them (I can't imagine what anyone else will do with them). Otherwise I've tried to fix the English (grammar, spelling, readability).

At some point the article gets a lot better (presumably this is the content from the originally featured article), so I've left the well written parts alone (last two thirds or so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.214.144 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Synthesizer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071013131909/http://blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=829 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=829

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Clusternote continuously reverting fixes to this article

Clusternote is continually reverting changes to this article that affect content that clusternote has added. The problem is that the original content added by clusternote is not usually in correct English, and is most definitely not suited to an encyclopedia.

Any attempts to fix the dire English in this aritcle are constantly met by edit warring. I beg you to stop and give this article a chance.

This is not the first time this user has engaged in edit warring; I have been reported in the past for fixing the English he submitted; the case was laughed away once people looked at the content that clusternote was posting and the changes I made.

@clusternote: wiki is not your personal playground. Stop treating this article as your own personal property and come to terms with the fact that English is not your native language. If you want to contribute, fine, but please let those of us who speak English keep the article at a professional standard. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your pet project.

See also my comments under "[Very Poorly Written Article" above (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Synthesizer#Very_Poorly_Written_Article] (posted from a different IP), which I wrote after first trying to fix this mess and the subsequent "discussion" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Clusternote#Don.27t_revert_English_corrections_for_no_reason.21. 80.245.197.109 (talk) 10:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

STOP personal attack immediately

My articles entirely written by me have been accepted by reviewers & administrators, and also I often collaborated with many other writers on the other articles.

The current issue is merely the changes of two expressions:

1. revision 718245260 (11:32, 2 May 2016) by 80.245.197.109

   Synthesizers may either imitate (...), or generate new electronic timbres.

2. revision 719025000 (03:31, 7 May 2016‎) by User:Clusternote

   Synthesizers may either imitate the already existing sounds (...), or generate new electronic timbres which were not existing before.

The difference between these is merely the details of description. --Clusternote (talk) 02:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the anonymous editor's changes in this case. Clusternote, your ability to write in English is definitely not at an appropriate level for the encyclopedia, so please cease edit warring over corrections to your contributions. To the anon: Since you are a longer-term contributor here, it might be useful for you to register for an account. This will make it much easier to communicate with you without having to chase down dynamic IP addresses. --Laser brain (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance at the edit history shows that the edit described by 80.245.197.109 as "Clusternote continuously reverting fixes to this article" was in fact made by a different editor entirely, namely Binksternet. Before slinging about phrases like "edit warring", it would be well to check the facts a little more carefully. It appears that at least two editors disagree with 80.245.197.109 on this issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Clusternote has a history of introducing grammatical errors and then reverting people who try to correct them, going back more than a year. Please review the history before accusing me of "slinging about phrases". --Laser brain (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not the truth, as I already explained on a long thread mentioned above ("Don.'t revert English corrections for no reason"). I have always described on summary field the reason why each reverting/editing is needed (except for minor edits), and most of them are the fixes of inaccurate creation of Synthesizer history without reliable sources, rather than English grammar battle claimed by IP user. --Clusternote (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Revisionist issue

On this article, several anonymous users tend to create the false history of synthesizer without any source for unknown reason, and at least one login user have continuously supported them.

Recently I had corrected an unsourced sentence because it was inconsistent with the section #Impact on popular music. Then I added new citation supporting both before and after modification.

Revision 740268343: Synthesizers gained popularity in pop music in the 1960s.

⇓

Revision 740328119:  Synthesizers have been put in practical use in the 1960s at the latest, also on the pop music fields.

with new citation:

Although before the 1960s, a number of experimental musicians used the forerunner of synthesizers, and possibly several of their works can be categorized as the forerunner of synthpop in today's sense, however, normally these are not categorized as the exact synthpop. For example, on the explore tool on Discogs, "1950s synthpop" returns empty, in contrast to "1960s synthpop" returns nearly 70 works, as following:

• "Explore Synth-pop from the 1950s on Discogs". Discogs. Retrieved 20 September 2016. — no result
• "Explore Synth-pop from the 1960s on Discogs". Discogs. Retrieved 20 September 2016. — 67 results

However, above login user immediately revert it including citation with a reason "poorly written addition".

Revision 740329714: Synthesizers were first used in pop music in the 1960s.

It seems unsound divert of issue unsound spin of issue (ignoratio elenchi), and possibly a kind of Wikipedia:Harassment, in my eyes. --Clusternote (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your English is very poor, to the point that I can't understand what change you are trying to make to the prose. I would normally copyedit the addition if I can discern the meaning, but I reverted you because I can't tell what you mean. I'm not trying to be mean or harass you—I'm simply telling you that you lack the competence in English to add prose to articles. --Laser brain (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sill waiting comments from other than the person concerned. --Clusternote (talk)

You can't use a raw list of record releases to support your statement. Doing so is original research. Please find a secondary source that supports the information you want to add. I don't have an issue with Clusternote reverting your changes. Your first attempt was difficult to read and the second did not introduce a clear improvement to the article. We don't edit just to change stuff. We edit to make things better. ~Kvng (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Types of synthesizer

There is no section to explain what different kinds of synthesizer there are? --Rob Kam (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult, because various instruments can be described as synthesizers. Much of this article is about classic analogue synthesizers such as the Minimoog, but there are also digital synthesizers such as the Yamaha DX7 and sampling keyboards such as the Fairlight CMI. The word "synthesizer" often conjures up an image of a classic analogue synth, but the article deals with various types of electronic instrument.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of the basic types called out in Synthesizer § History and Synthesizer § Sound synthesis. There's also Synthesizer § Types of synthesizers which is just an outline with wikilinks but could be turned into prose to become what you're looking for. ~Kvng (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)