Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 97 posts

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#61

Post by type0 »

ratww wrote: post #37
klodolph wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the biggest synth from the current era will be the eurorack. Yes, it’s really a form factor and not a synth but it’s taken off in the past few years in a really startling way.

Maybe in influence... it helped kickstart the modular revival and even made other form factors popular again. But in number of absolute units in operation, I don't know... Unless we compare number of modules sold vs number of Microkorgs. Modulars are expensive!

> Modulars are expensive!

So often eurorack synth building ends up in addiction like gear acquisition syndrome that it's almost like gambling. The only reasonably priced building is via DIY kits, but it still end up expensive and even more so time consuming, so it suits those who like soldering more than making music. I'm excited for a few digital eurorack modules, like Erica Synths Black Wavetable VCO, but no one could argue that it's affordable for a hobbyist.

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#62

Post by type0 »

ratww wrote: post #55
alisonatwork wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is where the conversation starts to get a bit far away from the original topic, which was about how the DX7 changed modern music. I am also a big fan of electronic music and owned several of the x0x synths, but they're only really recognizable to people who are already into synths. Of course if you play an 808 and 909 next to one another, they don't sound the same. But if you play a random piece of music…

I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream. A lot of pop from before was already using synths. Funkytown was a Billboard #1 hit 4 years before the DX7, and so was Vangelis, Human League, Eurythmics and Owner of a Lonely Heart a year or two after that, not to mention lots of Michael Jackson and even the Ghostbuster theme... and that's just the Billboard #1 hits…

> I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream.

For a polyphonic synth though it was a game-changer, it did make it affordable, but so did sh-101 and countless other synths but those weren't polyphonic. Roland Juno could be said, it wasn't revolutionary but more evolutionary in electronic music making. Here's a good article on DCO vs VCO https://blog.thea.codes/the-design-of-the-juno-dco/ and recent discussion here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598656

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#63

Post by fxj »

The DX7 was the first of this kind of digital musical instruments. Every keyboarder at that time had to have one. They were pretty expensive, so Yamaha came out with some cheaper models with 4 oscillators instead of 6. The sound was also very good and the E-Rhodes is still a classic. But soon after that Roland came out with the D50 and that changed everything again, because now you could mix samples and digital oscillators. Yamahas answer to that was the SY77. A monster synth that nobody could program any more.

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#64

Post by ratww »

type0 wrote: post #62
ratww wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream. A lot of pop from before was already using synths. Funkytown was a Billboard #1 hit 4 years before the DX7, and so was Vangelis, Human League, Eurythmics and Owner of a Lonely Heart a year or two after that, not to mention lots of Michael Jackson and even the Ghostbuster theme... and that's just the Billboard #1 hits…

> I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream. For a polyphonic synth though it was a game-changer, it did make it affordable, but so did sh-101 and countless other synths but those weren't polyphonic. Roland Juno could be said, it wasn't revolutionary but more evolutionary in electronic music making. Here's a good article on DCO vs VCO https://blog.thea.codes/…

I don't disagree about its technical merits as a synth, as an instrument, or what it did to music makers. I was merely disputing the claim that it made synth music mainstream.

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#65

Post by ratww »

alisonatwork wrote: post #60
ratww wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream. A lot of pop from before was already using synths. Funkytown was a Billboard #1 hit 4 years before the DX7, and so was Vangelis, Human League, Eurythmics and Owner of a Lonely Heart a year or two after that, not to mention lots of Michael Jackson and even the Ghostbuster theme... and that's just the Billboard #1 hits…

You are correct that synth music as a genre existed before the DX7, and that synths were used in popular songs even going back into the 70s. But what this article is discussing, and what most people discuss when they talk about the DX7, is how its sales dwarfed that of any synth that came before it. It didn't just become a piece of equipment used by major studios in countless hits across many different genres, it als…

I'm not really disputing sales, I'm more disputing the claim that it changed music or made synth music mainstream. Synth music was mainstream before the DX7. And I don't really remember non-musicians talking about the DX7 the way most prog music fans (and also some Clockwork Orange fans) seem to know Moogs. Or Hammonds. 80s pop music fans don't seem to be the kind to do reminisce about synths.

About 909s and 303s, like I said, they were special when they were in their heyday. Most people knew them by name, since there were lots of track titles, there was a TB-303 reference in Ghost in the Shell, and there are some TR-909 and TB-303 tattoos if you search Google... I'm not disputing that 808s are more famous now that hip hop is very mainstream, the 808 kick drum is in vogue for years and Kanye albums have 808s in their title. Like I said, you have to keep those things into context when making a comparison, otherwise only the 808 will ever count as "important"... that's it. Maybe the Moog is a better example?

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#67

Post by SeanLuke »

jdontillman wrote: post #4

Interesting. I agree that the article is an exaggeration. It could be argued that the DX7 had a significant negative musical contribution. Oodles of sounds at the expense of musical expression. The musician became alienated from the process of making the sound. The keyboard player's job moved from playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts that aren't guitars. And the DX7 was way too dif…

> FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer featured it in the 60's.

But the critical feature of FM synthesis that made it usable as a musical element was linear FM. Early synthesizers (like, I presume Buchla's) sported "FM" but it was exponential due to volt/oct.

> John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.

?? Chowning's paper doesn't mention phase modulation at all, does it? His equation is for frequency modulation.

https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/course/100/misc/chowning...

I would presume that the relationships between phase and frequency modulation were known a half-century before Chowning.

> Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital audio filters, which require millions of multiplication/accumulation operations a second.

This seems high? A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample? This would seem to be in the same level of complexity as six carrier/modulator interactions; you have to do a multiply to do a lookup after all. Or is the issue that the multiplies had to be 12-16 bit?

> Maybe it was an accidental choice of words in the article, but I would also say that the DX7 was, indeed, one of the most important advances in terms of musical engineering.

I think it's easy to argue that the DX7 was the most important synthesizer in history. People forget that the DX7 caused a near-death experience for the industry as a whole as analog synth makers were put out of business by the DX7 and its progeny. It also heralded the arrival of commercially viable FM, and created a revolution not just in synthesizers but in PC sound cards, (ugh) ringtones, you name it.

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#68

Post by kristjankalm »

jdontillman wrote: post #31
Exmoor wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree that the DX7's sound is really dated has honestly really negatively impacted some of my favorite songs recorded in the the 1980's [0][1], but I really cannot think of an specific instrument as distinctive and widespread as it. The Telecaster and Stratocaster were very popular, but it's very tough to pick them out in a recording from other types of electric guitars. Hammond Organs are distinct and popula…

"Hammond Organs are distinct and popular, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as the DX7." Dude... There were about 200,000 DX7s manufactured. There were about 2 million Hammond Organs manufactured.

Could I ask the source for these numbers? I've been trying to find some production numbers for popular synths (including submodels, e.g. all Minimoog or Prophet 5 versions combined etc), but haven't really found anything properly sourced/cited.

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#69

Post by raphlinus »

noizejoy wrote: post #49
ksk wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any reasons to use a full synth these days? I'm not a musician but I've been dabbling in digital audio on and off and I really like the sound quality of sampled instruments especially for Piano. I haven't used the original DX7 only a VST (Dexed) for it.

I much prefer using the Dexed VST software based synth for recording over a DX7. The sound is hard to tell apart, the DX 7 doesn’t have a good surface for programming, has a crappy midi implementation, and doesn’t integrate into a DAW as well as a plugin. Since the DX7 is digital anyway, you also don’t loose much real or perceived “analog warmth”. Source: I have both.

Thanks, appreciate the kind words!

Disclosure/shameless self-brag: I wrote the original synthesizer engine that became Dexed, though the team has moved it forward in lots of important ways. I did careful reverse engineering of an actual DX7 II, including disassembling its ROM, so the fact that it matches well should not be surprising.

Re: Yamaha’s DX7 synthesiser changed modern music

#70

Post by MegaDeKay »

alisonatwork wrote: post #30
scoopdewoop wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that roland drum machines and bass synths would be up there, especially in the past 30 years.

I think the TR-808 is the only one that might qualify. Although there are loads of synthesizers that were extremely influential in the industry and are immediately recognizable to hardcore synth fans (M1, D-50, Prophet 5, TB-303, Minimoog etc), I doubt there are many that the average listener would consider to be "distinctive". This is what makes the TR-808 special, I think, even though there are lots of other drum m…

Have you ever listened to this Twenty Thousand Hertz podcast on the 808? It is a good deep dive into its history, its distinctive sound, and what made it as influential as it was.

https://www.20k.org/episodes/808

Post reply on HN