6 ms·

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 a

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 difficult to program. Sort of like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube; you can be one twist away and not know it. And since whole point of synthesis was for the musician to explore and tweak their sound, the DX7 was sort of an anti-synth. That said... 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. Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital audio filters, which require millions of multiplication/accumulation operations a second. The microprocessors of the day were not up to the task. TRW offered a 16x16 bit multiplier chip, but it cost around $300 for the chip alone (!!!) and required significant support circuitry. FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer featured it in the 60's. John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm. Then some smart folks realized that FM synthesis could be implemented entirely in add and ROM lookup operations, which is downright easy in 1983 technology. Then they refined FM some more so it could produce a wide timbral range from the single engine. That's the impressive part of the DX7.

Exmoor 6y ago
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 popular, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as the DX7. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXRLozwejDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXRLozwejDk
- scoopdewoop 6y ago
  I'd say that roland drum machines and bass synths would be up there, especially in the past 30 years.
  - alisonatwork 6y ago
    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 machines that can make the same sounds. It's become a part of the standard lexicon of hip-hop, R&B and electronic music. I imagine a fair amount of casual pop music fans know that when someone says an 808 beat is about to drop, they're gonna get that booming bass drum and typewriter snare, maybe a cowbell. I'm not sure the DX7 ever had the same widespread name recognition, even back in its heyday. And outside of synths, I don't think the average person connects specific guitar models to distinct sounds either, even if they know the names in the abstract. The 808 might be unique in this. Then again, rock music fans might never even have heard of it?
    - ratww 6y ago
      > I think the TR-808 is the only one that might qualify. Only? No way! :D The Roland TR-909 is also extremely popular and was considered the sound of techno and house even after the TR-808 started to fade outside hip-hop. In the mid-90s it was one of the first drum machines to start being cloned by new manufacturers due to the demand. The bass drum is still used as the foundation for a lot of EDM. It never went away... while the 808 which is back but was considered passé even in hip-hop for a short while. The TB-303 Bass Synth is also extremely sought after. It was the sound of Acid House in the late 80s and was also a mainstay in the 90s for a lot of producers, even though it's limited. Today it's kind of a novelty but you still hear it in some tracks. More recently Behringer made a clone and Roland reissued it. Both of those two got in the vernacular of EDM fans at the time. Also the TR-606 has some cult status due to being used by artists like Autechre, Aphex Twin and Plastikman among others, which are sort of "musician's musicians" among the electronic music crowd, although it wasn't as famous as 303/808/909 among general listeners.
malthaus 6y ago
The difference between analog and digital FM/PM is quite immense though. It's very hard to get good sounding analog FM (e.g. on my modular system) due to the instability of the oscillators. It's mostly used for weird sounds or with short envelopes to accent the attack phase. In that sense, DX7 et al where a huge leap as they brought an extensive sound range to the table (even though deeply in the uncanny valley for some of them)
SeanLuke 6y ago
> 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-73-tso.pdf 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.
- walto2 6y ago
  > A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample? This is true today using something like the Chamberlin form for a state variable filter. I don't think that level of optimization had been discovered yet in the DX7 timeframe. Also, for adequate quality you want to oversample at least 2x, preferably at least 4x. And 16 bits usually won't be enough headroom in a digital filter for good audio quality. Too much truncation.
  - SeanLuke 6y ago
    Well, remember the DX7 was 12 bit.

Exmoor 6y ago

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 popular, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as the DX7. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXRLozwejDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXRLozwejDk

scoopdewoop 6y ago
I'd say that roland drum machines and bass synths would be up there, especially in the past 30 years.
- alisonatwork 6y ago
  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 machines that can make the same sounds. It's become a part of the standard lexicon of hip-hop, R&B and electronic music. I imagine a fair amount of casual pop music fans know that when someone says an 808 beat is about to drop, they're gonna get that booming bass drum and typewriter snare, maybe a cowbell. I'm not sure the DX7 ever had the same widespread name recognition, even back in its heyday. And outside of synths, I don't think the average person connects specific guitar models to distinct sounds either, even if they know the names in the abstract. The 808 might be unique in this. Then again, rock music fans might never even have heard of it?
  - ratww 6y ago
    > I think the TR-808 is the only one that might qualify. Only? No way! :D The Roland TR-909 is also extremely popular and was considered the sound of techno and house even after the TR-808 started to fade outside hip-hop. In the mid-90s it was one of the first drum machines to start being cloned by new manufacturers due to the demand. The bass drum is still used as the foundation for a lot of EDM. It never went away... while the 808 which is back but was considered passé even in hip-hop for a short while. The TB-303 Bass Synth is also extremely sought after. It was the sound of Acid House in the late 80s and was also a mainstay in the 90s for a lot of producers, even though it's limited. Today it's kind of a novelty but you still hear it in some tracks. More recently Behringer made a clone and Roland reissued it. Both of those two got in the vernacular of EDM fans at the time. Also the TR-606 has some cult status due to being used by artists like Autechre, Aphex Twin and Plastikman among others, which are sort of "musician's musicians" among the electronic music crowd, although it wasn't as famous as 303/808/909 among general listeners.

malthaus 6y ago

The difference between analog and digital FM/PM is quite immense though. It's very hard to get good sounding analog FM (e.g. on my modular system) due to the instability of the oscillators. It's mostly used for weird sounds or with short envelopes to accent the attack phase. In that sense, DX7 et al where a huge leap as they brought an extensive sound range to the table (even though deeply in the uncanny valley for some of them)

SeanLuke 6y ago

> 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-73-tso.pdf 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.

walto2 6y ago
> A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample? This is true today using something like the Chamberlin form for a state variable filter. I don't think that level of optimization had been discovered yet in the DX7 timeframe. Also, for adequate quality you want to oversample at least 2x, preferably at least 4x. And 16 bits usually won't be enough headroom in a digital filter for good audio quality. Too much truncation.
- SeanLuke 6y ago
  Well, remember the DX7 was 12 bit.