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

They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

kevinboone.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#61

Post by khedoros1 »

recursive wrote: post #2

> And once we have sampling technology, there’s little point using computational techniques to make the once-novel sounds of earlier synthesizers: we can just sample the instruments themselves You can't tweak the parameters of a filter envelope if it's "printed" to a sample. You might sample a variety of different envelopes, but there's still fundamentally no way you can get the sound of the filter attack gradually i…

Assuming the details of the DX7 are similar to some of the PC Yamaha FM synth hardware, you could do things like set the attack/decay of a modulating operator to be very slow, the attack of a carrier to be fairly fast, and subsequent key presses wouldn't necessarily sound the same. And with a big chained algorithm like the DX7 can do, I agree, you couldn't capture the full behavior through a sample.

You could replicate the most common behavior, though.

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#62

Post by alterom »

adzm wrote: post #55
alterom wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also didn't get why FM synthesis was so appealing, in spite of being difficult to understand for the common musician. It's in the tone . Acoustic instruments respond in a complex way to the variation in strength of input: when you strike the key in the piano faster, pluck a string harder, or blow air info the saxophone stronger, you don't merely get a louder sound: the harmonic content , the timbre of the sound…

Beautiful summary of a rich and poorly commonly understood subject

Thanks so much!

I'm in love with my Reface DX, and have a soft spot for all FM synth. I'm glad it came through!

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#64

Post by markusw »

atorodius wrote: post #63

I am kind of still confused why the industry links „keyboard controllers“ with „synths“. there should be just good keyboard controllers that can plug into good synths (like Eurorack). What am I missing?

You’re missing MIDI controllers, of which there are plenty. :) Synth versions without the keys are often called “desktop versions”.

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#65

Post by Animats »

alterom wrote: post #48
coldtea wrote: post #18

> With hindsight, the DX7 and its ilk look like a weird diversion in the path of musical progress. Operator synthesis makes no logical sense. It became popular because we had the capability to do digital sound generation, but lacked the technology to do it in a comprehensible, systematic way. So the DX7 enjoyed huge popularity for a few years, before fading into obscurity. That's a weird take. I mean "Operator synthe…

They also didn't get why FM synthesis was so appealing, in spite of being difficult to understand for the common musician. It's in the tone . Acoustic instruments respond in a complex way to the variation in strength of input: when you strike the key in the piano faster, pluck a string harder, or blow air info the saxophone stronger, you don't merely get a louder sound: the harmonic content , the timbre of the sound…

Very nice.

The DX7 is a musical instrument in its own right. Samplers are emulators of something else.

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#66

Post by ruined »

nine_k wrote: post #58
alfiedotwtf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a MODX and although it’s so damn powerful when it comes to sound design - each of the 16 parts can have 8 layers each, it’s a lot of work to do anything with it. I’ve seen piano patches that sound REALISTIC because in 8 layers, you can model the hammer, the initial string hit, the cabinet echo, string resonance, and a whole lot of other timbres… but it takes SO MUCH EFFORT. So unless you’re a /real/ sound desi…

But what's the point of making piano patches that sound realistic, except as a tour de force? It's sort of a "Pierre Menard, author of Quixote" sort of thing. What I'd be interested in is how viable it is for producing intetesting, distinctive sounds, and tweaking them to your liking in a comprehensible way, not poking blindly.

>what's the point of making piano patches that sound realistic, except as a tour de force?

pianos are enjoyable, but expensive and very heavy

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#67

Post by skywal_l »

ajxs wrote: post #11

If people are interested in the DX7's technical details, I've done some work reverse-engineering it, and some of Yamaha's other FM synths: https://ajxs.me/blog/tag/DX7.html Ken Shirriff has also done some amazing work analysing the DX7's sound chips: https://www.righto.com/2021/11/reverse-engineering-yamaha-dx... A really awesome documentary on the DX7 by MadFame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXt_NXjc7oY There are…

Somehow related, another excellent youtube channel on old retro keyboards: https://www.youtube.com/c/KeenOnKeys

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#68

Post by xpe »

alterom wrote: post #48
coldtea wrote: post #18

> With hindsight, the DX7 and its ilk look like a weird diversion in the path of musical progress. Operator synthesis makes no logical sense. It became popular because we had the capability to do digital sound generation, but lacked the technology to do it in a comprehensible, systematic way. So the DX7 enjoyed huge popularity for a few years, before fading into obscurity. That's a weird take. I mean "Operator synthe…

They also didn't get why FM synthesis was so appealing, in spite of being difficult to understand for the common musician. It's in the tone . Acoustic instruments respond in a complex way to the variation in strength of input: when you strike the key in the piano faster, pluck a string harder, or blow air info the saxophone stronger, you don't merely get a louder sound: the harmonic content , the timbre of the sound…

Attempt to summarize one part (the “playability”): You are suggesting the velocity curves and their interaction with the algorithms gave the DX7 a lot of its nuance?

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#69

Post by xpe »

bartread wrote: post #33
coldtea wrote: post #18

> With hindsight, the DX7 and its ilk look like a weird diversion in the path of musical progress. Operator synthesis makes no logical sense. It became popular because we had the capability to do digital sound generation, but lacked the technology to do it in a comprehensible, systematic way. So the DX7 enjoyed huge popularity for a few years, before fading into obscurity. That's a weird take. I mean "Operator synthe…

“DX7 … before fading into obscurity.” Uh, yeah, that is quite a take. Like most synths, the DX7 went through an untrendy era, but it’s certainly bounced back and you’ll hear its patches used all over the place today. That Top Gun tubular bell patch, for example, shows up quite a bit - most recently heard it on a track called 4AM (the Fauns Remix) by Power Glove. Not to mention there are a ton of software emulations,…

Some great synths are taxing to operate and tweak in real time even if you know what is happening. So I appreciate your point about variations on the interface.

Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard

#70

Post by bowsamic »

atorodius wrote: post #63

I am kind of still confused why the industry links „keyboard controllers“ with „synths“. there should be just good keyboard controllers that can plug into good synths (like Eurorack). What am I missing?

There are a huge number of MIDI controllers and keyboardless synths
Post reply on HN