Dubstepforum.com

sargentpilcher wrote:If you don't picture yourself winning this, then why do you still think 3x0sc is capable of making every sound any other synth can make? I'm really just trying to prove a point

because it can. I am just doubting my own synthing ability.

I'd like to see this "synth off".

jrisreal wrote:

sargentpilcher wrote:If you don't picture yourself winning this, then why do you still think 3x0sc is capable of making every sound any other synth can make? I'm really just trying to prove a point

because it can. I am just doubting my own synthing ability.

It can't. What Teknicyde probably said was that you can import any single cycle waveform to use as an oscillator in 3osc. Even still, that doesn't equate to "any sound". It just means you have one wave cycle of a sound. The best patches are evolving modulated timbres that have life. You can't duplicate that with a single cycle waveform unless you're gonna have 500 instances of 3osc and program them to all fire off in sequence and crossfade between them. That would be even more convoluted than using a bunch of 3osc's sines to build a harmonic series instead of a proper additive synth. While both ideas are technically possible, you'd be a silly tnuc to try it instead of using a better tool.

Not contesting that 3osc is a good synth, I've made some hefty patches for it in my FL days. But if you try to get into a synth-off with this dude he's just gonna smoke you with fm8, end of.

Use your head, don't regurgitate (misinterpreted) information.

Nah, Tek was talking about some additive sine wave theory shit. Don't misunderstand.
Teknicyde was originally trying to make a point that you CAN (operative word) make any sound with just sines, if you add them the right way.
3xosc has a sine waveform so it can. So can massive, fm8 etc. etc. They also happen to have complex sounding waveforms/wavetables/fm modulation, so you can do all that complex sine shit, on the fly by twisting a knob.
Granted, not many will do this, since we have all these fancy synths, but theoretically, yes. 3xosc=sine wave capable synth=Any sound possible. But we have FM for that.

lol @ the whole "any synth can make any sound" mantra.... its terrific to hold yourself accountable for sound creation, and not the tools, but that's just not true. Developers devote their lives' work to creating better tools for synthesis, why not use them? get good at as many synths as possible and take advantage of their unique functionalities/timbres.

i don't know how to make a saw wave out of sine waves... but guess what, i have a saw wave oscillator!

Word, that's what this argument comes down to every time anyway.

The point being that you would need one instance of 3osc for each partial. That's like painting a mural with toothpicks dipped in paint. While technically possible, it would be a massive waste of time and resources.

One instance of 3osc cannot recreate any sound possible. An additive synth on the other hand, is quite capable. Alchemy can take a sample and resynthesize it through the additive engine.
If you were to claim that Alchemy could create any sound possible I might tend to agree. But telling everyone who asks, to just use 3osc because it can do anything is just gonna confuse people and waste their time. Granted, as I said earlier, it's a quality stock synth. You can get some work done with just three basic oscillators and detuning. But OP is asking for something that sounds like an FM synth, and I can guarantee he would get nowhere trying to emulate FM tones on a basic subtractive synth.

To answer the OP, FM8 is a good alternative to Sytrus although it seems like you're trying to do this on a budget. There's some freeware Fm synths floating around, have a search. You may want to compliment that with an external midi triggered filter (Volcano2 is a solid payware one)
Your question is asking how to make wobbles though which leads me to the suspicion that you might not know exactly what sytrus does and simply heard that it makes cool wobbles. In that case, use a subtractive synth (like 3osc )

i reckon reaktor is the one who can make any sound on its own, you just have to be a fucking programmer to make headway with the damned ting

SunkLo wrote:

jrisreal wrote:

sargentpilcher wrote:If you don't picture yourself winning this, then why do you still think 3x0sc is capable of making every sound any other synth can make? I'm really just trying to prove a point

because it can. I am just doubting my own synthing ability.

It can't. What Teknicyde probably said was that you can import any single cycle waveform to use as an oscillator in 3osc.

nope. he said that any synth that provides you with three oscillators is capable of producing ANY single cycle waveform. and making morphing sounds shouldn't be a problem for people who have patience IMO...but it is a good point that there are much easier ways to achieve the same sounds with more complex synths...but as I said, I make almost all my pads from layering sines. Take this one, for example:
Soundcloud
only processing I did after that was some reverb and paul stretch.

If he said exactly that then he's wrong. Easy example would be a complex fm tone. Good luck recreating that with only 3 conventional oscillators in parallel. Or even a waveform comprised of 4 sines at different intervals. You think you could do that with 3 oscillators instead?

Do you have a link to where he said this? I'm curious as to whether he actually believes this himself or if you're just misinterpreting something he said.

SunkLo wrote:If he said exactly that then he's wrong. Easy example would be a complex fm tone. Good luck recreating that with only 3 conventional oscillators in parallel. Or even a waveform comprised of 4 sines at different intervals. You think you could do that with 3 oscillators instead?

Do you have a link to where he said this? I'm curious as to whether he actually believes this himself or if you're just misinterpreting something he said.

Teknicyde wrote:

3za wrote:

Teknicyde wrote:Additive synthesis theory is capable of producing any sound you've ever heard with no more than 3 oscs. Why 3 is the standard in most synths you download.

Source? I have only ever heard that on here...

OP: when you start seeing gaping holes in your arsenal of plug-ins, that is when your need something new imo, and I ain't talking lust.

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

If you scroll down to the bit of crazy maths in the theory section, the way I had it broken down to me, was that three variables with the right phase and frequency can produce any waveform when added together...

When i say any sound though, Im really saying any 'single wavecycle'... making them evolve, that a whole different business.

taken from this thread: http://dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=213824

creating a tone is one thing

single cycle waveform is a little different to creating "any sound".

I like 3XOsc, i use it alot, but whatever anyone tells me it is limited.

wow, thanks for all the replies... sorry I missed so many replies.. anyway, I know I didn't give it enough time, but I tried some of the free plugins.. (SUCH A VALUABLE PAGE/LINK, THANK YOU!) I know it's one of the more basic synths out there, but at least for now, 3xosc is good enough for my needs... plus there is only a very VERY small chance of a virus or something (pretty much none) , cuz I already have it from Image-Line Thanks everyone!

jrisreal wrote: and that weird extra one.

I'm pretty sure the weird extra one is where you add custom waveforms

jrisreal wrote:

SunkLo wrote:If he said exactly that then he's wrong. Easy example would be a complex fm tone. Good luck recreating that with only 3 conventional oscillators in parallel. Or even a waveform comprised of 4 sines at different intervals. You think you could do that with 3 oscillators instead?

Do you have a link to where he said this? I'm curious as to whether he actually believes this himself or if you're just misinterpreting something he said.

Teknicyde wrote:

3za wrote:

Teknicyde wrote:Additive synthesis theory is capable of producing any sound you've ever heard with no more than 3 oscs. Why 3 is the standard in most synths you download.

Source? I have only ever heard that on here...

OP: when you start seeing gaping holes in your arsenal of plug-ins, that is when your need something new imo, and I ain't talking lust.

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

If you scroll down to the bit of crazy maths in the theory section, the way I had it broken down to me, was that three variables with the right phase and frequency can produce any waveform when added together...

When i say any sound though, Im really saying any 'single wavecycle'... making them evolve, that a whole different business.

taken from this thread: http://dubstepforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=213824

Everything can essentially be broken down mathematically, this does not imply that everything possible is going to be achievable.
The complexity involved to create certain sounds is not achievable with 3 osc.
You would need thousands of osc.

That wiki article says:

Fourier discovered that periodic functions are formed by the summation of an infinite series of sinusoidal functions

And the one on the fourier series itself:

In mathematics, a Fourier series decomposes periodic functions or periodic signals into the sum of a (possibly infinite) set of simple oscillating functions, namely sines and cosines (or complex exponentials).

Of course you can make some really interesting sounds with 3 sine oscillators + processing.