How non-native english speakers pronounce english, no problem, quirks are to be expected. For me, it’s synth-eh-sys … I don’t get the pronunciation, by native english speakers, synth-ee-sys … nobody plays a synth-ee-siser do they ? It’s synth-eh-siser.
Not that it bugs me that much … just find it strange.
I prefer to pronounce Moog as Moog, thank you.
The more in depth you go, the more vague the picture becomes. FM, Additive and Subtractive are also marketing terms – FM can be throught of as waveshaping, as can PWM. What if you simply read through a list of values? Imagine all the possibilities there.
Additive has so many different meanings depending on who you ask. And don’t get me started on subtractive.
Even digital relies on an analogue signal (yes, even if it’s piped through an optical cable).
Do we really need “types” and categories to make sense of things or can we live in a world where everything is interconnected in complex and wonderful ways? That’s a rhetorical question. 
Is wavefolding a sandwich?
I don’t think “granular” synthesizes anything does it? It’s more like just an effect applied to an existing sound. Like a stutter or glitch effect on a breakbeat, right?
I think so too, but I often hear those words together. Granular synthesis.
Maybe because the source is a grain of sound, but is then either subtracted from with filters or built up with effects, etc.
Like how the source in other forms of synthesis is usually some simple wave.
But then even the tiniest sample is also a wave! 
I don’t know. It’s late.
Hmm, yes I suppose you could think of “granular” as just another waveform selection to start from like a square or sine. When you break synthesis methods down like this to a “granular” level the lines begin to blur.
At least they’re all interesting as heck.
I didn’t know bitmask was a thing until this week.
Makes you realize the true unwritten modular nature of synthesis, the possibilities extend well beyond a few established methods
I’ve not seen discussion of single cycle waveforms so far.
… and where does sampling fit in anyway, is that included in ‘synthesis’ or not ? What if it’s a sample that’s sweep filtered and amplitude modulated ?
Yes, I’m asking hard questions … because I don’t think it’s all cut and dried … there are a lot of blends, and different perspectives.
I think all of those examples just result in an oscillation of varying degrees of complexity which is then utilized in whatever method of synthesis you choose. Saw, Square, Sine and Triangle are classics and convenient for utilizing certain harmonics but in the end are only a drop in the ocean of infinite wave shapes. And I think when using samples it becomes more of an analog versus digital discussion, but both are valid.
There is a lot of techniques of organizing grains into a cloud. Grains can be generated from simple waves, so, yes, no contradiction here. Theory of granular synthesis is quite complex and has a long history. It’s not only about stuttering effect on a wave file or implementing a time-stretch
My concern in this topic is why Vector Synthesis still considered a separate type? It’s just 2D mixing of waveforms in subtractive or S&S synth and it was more of marketing term…
It was surely was brilliant idea for it’s time (when there were also serious limits of cpu power and memory size) and can produce some interesting timbres, but now it looks like more ‘poor man’s wavetables’.
It was implemented in only few models of synths and the most recent ones (Arturia’s, Wavestate) are more a tributes to the same classics from Korg/Sequential/Yamaha.
correction: VectorSynth seems to expand more actually on this idea
One could make a pedantic argument that it is, like say that a standard synth just applies effects to an oscillator.
In addition to Granular, I’d add multi-tap delay as a kind of synthesis in the way it’s used by Eventide for many things.
actually that’s a good one. Delay-based synthesis or maybe extend it to feedback synthesis. It’s very powerful and appears in many forms… however there is not much theory about this
(upd: cannot resist posting this link - devices - p u l s e w i d t h)
Glad you did, that’s quite an interesting rabbit hole of recordings!
Fwiw, phase distortion sounds a lot like crappy phase modulation. I think if you analyze it the math might come out similarly. Idk though, I tried making a PD synth once and screwed it up. I should probably give it another go sometime.
Physical modeling, though, that’s something different. If anything, subtractive and additive are subsets of this beast. I mean you’re basically pushing noise down connected tuned delay lines w/ feedback. There are variations, but most of them are doing some amount of this… like KS only needs one delay, etc.
Sometimes, when moms & dads love each other very much, they synthesize a whole new human person.
Who will someday grow up to be big and Karplus Strong.
i am completely with you. If you take a wavetable that interpolates from one to another waveform (or maybe more) and exit one step before you do the Wave-Table-Generation-process (aka writing down the file) you have something quite similar to vector.
I would include sampling in the way you’ve discussed as a type of synthesis. The Roland JD-800 from 1991 would be an example of this (I think?). I suppose there is a - possibly difficult to define - crossover point where something shifts from being merely the playback of a sample to synthesis.