Whats hard (and impressive in regards to those who came up with meaningful patches in the 80s) about starting with FM synthesis isn’t only the programmability (modern FM synths have that covered, see the other comments). It’s not an intuitive thing to work with algorithms and you need to learn what is happening. I can recommend FM Theory and Applications by Musicians for Musicians for everyone who wants to create own…
In addition to this wonderful resource, I can also recommend getting Dexed and just playing around. It's free, open source and, importantly, as unintuitive as an actual DX7. Great for digging deep into how and why a change in an operator creates a change in a sound.
They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
101–110 of 225 posts
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#102> 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…
Absolutely. The whole genre of dubstep is based on FM synthesis :)
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#103Brian Eno, of course, insisted that the problem with the DX7 was entirely the fault of the UI. He had a custom controller made, although I can’t find a photo of it. These days, the DT-7 attempts to emulate it. Edit: It wasn't a custom controller, image in reply.
https://reverb.com/item/21724471-jellinghaus-dx-programmer-f...
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
VS plug a headset in and stop being interrupted by irate neighbours annoyed by your enthusiastic musical expression, while still enjoying "real piano" dynamics.
(or waking the kid that you just put to bed in the adjacent room and finally it's that me-time of the day)
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#105Brian Eno, of course, insisted that the problem with the DX7 was entirely the fault of the UI. He had a custom controller made, although I can’t find a photo of it. These days, the DT-7 attempts to emulate it. Edit: It wasn't a custom controller, image in reply.
The programmer was a commercial product, rather than a custom design made specifically for Eno. It was manufactured by a German company named Jellinghaus: https://reverb.com/item/21724471-jellinghaus-dx-programmer-f...
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#106Earlier 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.
Because via modelling (not necessarily FM-based) they can be made more realistic or more expressive than pre-recorded samples (see Pianotte or SWAM for examples).
Also you can then make the piano tonal characteristics as you want them (instead of confined to a fixed real piano's sound).
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#107But they still make great stuff like Korg Volca FM or Dirtywave M8 and many, many other beautiful synths! Apart from that, with music equipment, it's completely different than with computers. In our case, great hardware becomes outdated and goes out of use. You could say it disappears forever because its time has passed. With music equipment, it's entirely different. There, everything remains compatible, almost nothi…
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#108Very wrong. The Prophet 5, Oberheim 4/8 voice, Roland Jupiter 8, MemoryMoog, and especially the Yamaha CS80 were all available before the DX7, and very widely used on stage and in the studio.
But they really were stupendously expensive - far too expensive for mere mortals.
(There were also fully polyphonic string synthesizers, which had a very, very simple synthesizer under each note, but they were based more on vintage organ technology.)
So by the time the DX7 appeared, Roland and Korg had already produced semi-analog) instruments with digitally controlled oscillators and analog everything else.
The DX7 stood out because the keyboard responded to velocity, and it had an incredible 16 notes of polyphony. So you could play your fancy jazz chords on the epiano sound with the sustain pedal down, and the notes would respond to your fingers and wouldn't cut off too obviously.
The maximum for a pure analog polysynth was 8 notes, and cheaper models had between four and six notes. No fancy jazz chords. Especially not with sustain.
And the DX7 sound cut through - it was much thinner and more acoustic-sounding. The big analog polysynths sounded much bigger - lush, but less versatile, because they were best suited to string and brass fill-in pads, occasional special FX, and perhaps the occasional lead.
Yamaha did try to take synthesis up another level with physical modelling, which is based on more precise models of strings, reeds, pipes, and other resonators, and they produced a couple of very interesting, very very expensive instruments, before abandoning the tech. Sampling is better for imitating real sounds, and the synthetic sounds you get from physical modelling mostly don't sound all that much more interesting than FM.
We're about due another revolution, because there's so much processor power now a lot of synthesis techniques that used to be impossible are now practical. But culturally there just isn't the interest in experimentation. Electronic sounds live in a few small niches - even with modular - and there's not much of a push to explore outside of them.
Re: They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard
#109Earlier 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…
Could you recommend a patch set for the reface? I bought mine off someone who had some great presets and I loved it, but one day I accidentally factory reset it and there's only a few factory defaults that are really musical as you say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWcEruvc9eA&t=72s https://soundmondo.yamahasynth.com/user/7744