Hello,
for some reason I decided I want to learn SuperCollider. I’m a software developer by trade and accordingly the prospect of creating music by means of programming appeals to me.
The thing is - I have no idea whatsoever about synthesizers. This became clear very quickly while reading through the Getting Started tutorial. I’ve math background so I’m not afraid of that but up until yesterday I didn’t even know what an “Oscillator” is in this context and how you use it for subtractive synthesis. Long story short, I’m confident I’ll quickly pick up on the music theoretical basics and the physics stuff but it seems like SuperCollider is sort of a very direct programmatic adaption of concepts developed along with physical synthesizers.
My question is … does it make sense to jump right in attempting to learn SuperCollider or should I take a detour first learning how to use some virtual synthesizer (for example Yoshimi or Surge XT) to get the concepts, mental models and terminology down?
Otherwise I’d just work through “A Gentle Introduction to SuperCollider” and “SuperCollider for the Creative Musician” and see where it goes.
Cheers
Raffael
With your background I would just go straight for SuperCollider. It is quite easy to translate general subtractive synth recipes to SuperCollider and often the Ugens needed to build these are called something very similar to what you would come across, like SinOsc is a sine oscillator, Saw is a sawtooth etc. When I started with SuperCollider at had almost zero programming experience and connecting things through lines of code rather than using cables (analog or virtual) took me some effort to wrap my head around, but it seems this would be easy for you. I find that you can create quite powerful subtractive synth recipes in SC with very few lines of code. Some of my most beloved synths in SC are 10-15 lines of code. Just my 2 cents, somebody else might have a different opinion on this. And by the way, I absolutely love modular synths and the way you can interface them, especially analog ones - party for the sound, partly because it is so much more fun to turn a real knob than a mousy one. So if you could get your hands on one of those, like System 100M, last modular synth made by Roland that would be a great (learning) experience…they are probably mad expensive.
1 Like
Starting with math and programming skills but no signal flow / synthesis knowledge is a bit easier than starting with some synthesis knowledge and no math / programming skills. So, you’re in a good position. I’d say keep going through those two excellent introductions, and you’ll start to pick things up. The way different signals affect each other is a palpable experience that can guide you, whereas knowing how to index an array or create a good function has no “feel” to it (caveats aside – when you get good at it, then there’s a “feel”, sort of) – it’s just something you have to learn and practice.
And, hey, if you want a mix of both, grab xynthii 
(or its less complex cousin, Dumber from Another Mother). These both use subtractive synthesis (mostly), which I think is one of the better paradigms for building a general understanding of signal flow, and both have examples of combining the GUI (which could be used alone as a “softsynth”) and sclang to do things.
1 Like
Hi,
I agree with @Thor_Madsen and @mphonic. With programming skills you are very well equipped. Also started SC in the late 90s with programming/math and music background but not much experience with synthis.
The mentioned tutorials are fine, in additon to the ones shipped with SC itself.
1 Like
“SuperCollider for the Creative Musician”
This book is useful & the author has a lot of good SuperCollider tutorials on YouTube.
2 Likes
I think it would be a good idea to play with some software synths outside of SC in parallel.
In SC you’ll be able to create whatever signal chains you want, but without having some basis for the various components it might be very difficult to know what to experiment with. But I don’t think you need any level of expertise beyond a basic familiarity. Plus other synthesizers can also act as inspiration.
You should also check out some other guides or videos on synthesis techniques. Usually these are focused on specific pieces of gear, but not always. There’ll be tutorials on things like making evolving pad sounds or anything that may interest you that you can use concepts from.
The Sound on Sound Synth Secrets articles is also good to read through: https://www.soundonsound.com/series/synth-secrets-sound-sound
3 Likes
I think it is worth using and programming at least one regular synth. In SC you are essentially building a synth, so without that experience you’ll be building something you’ve never used. I think it is important to internalising the structure, workings, and sound of a few synths, and perhaps a sampler too. This can be done while learning SC. Subtractive synths tend to be somewhat easier, samplers are relatively straightforward, whereas synths like FM8 are very hard to program without an advanced knowledge of FM synthesis, but is an excellent tool if you are drawn that way.
Follow your passion and unique path, but the more you know the better.
1 Like
Maybe do a trial of Bitwig Studio? There, you get your softsynths but also a “grid”, which is a pretty decent feature that allows you to patch together modules. Plus, there are modulators that allow you to modulate pretty much anything. There’s a clarity to the UI that I think leads to better understanding than your typical “looks like analog gear” style of a lot of softsynths, but it’s way simpler than Max/PD. Tons of online content about using these modules, much of it actually useful. (Like, I don’t really do strict tempo-based music, but I’ve enjoyed and gotten ideas from people like Polarity). It can also clarify your reasons to use SC (other than you find it fun / challenging, it’s free, etc.) vs. a well-featured DAW.
1 Like