6 ms·

Another explanation that I've heard is that R&D for synthesizers in the 1980s and 1990s got brutally expensive, and a lot of companies just didn't make the tran

Another explanation that I've heard is that R&D for synthesizers in the 1980s and 1990s got brutally expensive, and a lot of companies just didn't make the transition.

jdkee 4y ago
Building synthesizers out of discrete components was simply far more expensive than using digital technology to create and modulate various sound waveforms. The Yamaha DX was far cheaper to manufacture than the polyphonics Prophet 5, Oberheim OB-Xa, or monophonic Minimoog. The DX was lighter and more reliable, produced a wide array of sounds, and was easier to keep in tune despite being more difficult to program for useful sounds. Many DX users used the stock sound patches except for Brian Eno and a handful of others who could dive into FM synthesis. See https://hub.yamaha.com/keyboards/synthesizers/discovering-digital-fm-john-chowning-remembers/ https://hub.yamaha.com/keyboards/synthesizers/discovering-di...
- dietrichepp 4y ago
  I don't think that's really an accurate account. The Minimoog and Prophet 5 are both from the 1970s. Despite the Minimoog's status as a collector's item today, it had roughly the same retail price as the DX7 in the 1980s--around $2000 USD. The Prophet 5 was more expensive at $4000, but it was also an incredibly successful, flagship synthesizer. Of the synthesizers listed--Prophet 5, Oberheim OB-Xa, and Minimoog, only the Minimoog was made primarily out of discrete components. The others relied heavily on integrated circuits from SSM or CEM. (Obviously they all contain discrete components--but the synth modules in a Prophet 5 or Oberheim OB-Xa are basically ICs with some support circuitry.) Sequential went out of business after developing the Prophet VS. Although it bears the "Prophet" name, it is a digital (or hybrid) synthesizer. It uses wavetables (like the PPG), but four of them simultaneously, with a Curtis VCF. It had a novel architecture (therefore confusing), the synthesizer itself was expensive, and there were some QA issues. It used TMS DSPs plus some custom ICs designed by Sequential. Apparently, during the design of the Prophet VS, there were various problems with the ICs that were fixed with kludges--Sequential wasn't in a financial position to make revisions to the ICs. In other words, the R&D cost for digital synths was too high.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    By the mid-80s the analogs were seen as last decade's sound for last year's people. They were immensely unfashionable, and by the beginning of the 90s they were being sold off for bargain prices. The low end of the analog market had been captured by budget polysynths from Korg and especially Roland which had most of the sound at much less of the price. The problem wasn't the cost of digital R&D, it was commoditisation which turned a high-margin super expensive boutique professional market into a low-margin semi-pro and amateur commodity market with cheaper, less exclusive and less prestigious products. The high-end market essentially disappeared and so do its distribution and promo channels. What was left supported a much smaller number of companies. All of the headline synth companies went under at that point, no matter what tech they used - Sequential, Oberheim, Moog, PPG, ARP, Ensoniq, E-mu, and even Fairlight and eventually Synclavier. As well as also-rans like Octave, Gleeman, Crumar and Siel. Korg also went under and were bought out by Yamaha. Yamaha survived because it's a huge zaibatsu with deep pockets. Even with the DX7 the synth division is a sidenote on its bottom line. Roland are also a huge corporation - mostly immensely profitable while also having street-level cool - and weathered the 80s and early 90s with some functional but clever hybrid models at relatively affordable prices. Around 2005 the boutique market started to reappear, but aimed less at professionals and more at now-affluent collectors and dabblers who "always wanted one of those", and/or are willing to drop $$$$$ on something spendy just to prove they can. So you get hipster-toy module makers in the Eurorack space, wildly overpriced Veblen toys like the OP 1, remakes of Classic Brands™, and various clones and reissues in both hardware and software form. It's very nostalgic and backward looking, and I suspect there will be another shakeout before the end of the decade.
    - piva00 4y ago
      > So you get hipster-toy module makers in the Eurorack space Which are used by artists all around (from amateur hobbyists to professional acts), they aren't "toy modules", there's been a lot of innovation in Eurorack and painting all of them as "toys" is a huge disservice to the whole format...
    - radiowave 4y ago
      What ended up working during the late 80s and through the 90s were ASICs that could be reused in areas other than just "pure" synthesizers - digital pianos, home organs, PC soundcards (IIRC both Emu and Ensoniq ended up being bought by Creative, the SoundBlaster company). So this worked out well for those companies that were in a position to do a good job of both the ASIC and logic board development, and also use the resulting technology to address those broader markers - Yamaha being the pre-eminant example. (I agree with the point about the DX7 being a sidenote, but I'd say that all the other product lines that the tech eventually flowed into will have ended up being rather more than just a sidenote.) Regarding the current market, despite all the retreads, I do think there's more interesting stuff going on than there has been for a long time (certainly in comparison to the analogue synth revival of the 90s), and I hope that manages to continue happening, even as I also kind of hope that the retro-appeal stuff will simmer down a bit.
- robbrown451 4y ago
  Yes and cheaper still is to just use the computer you already have to be your synth. I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. Software synths can not only do all those "fat" sounds but can do a really good job of synthesizing real instruments such as an acoustic piano. (see Pianoteq, for instance, which does not use sampling to create instrument sounds) I find analogue synths pretty fascinating but if you are just using them to make music (as opposed to a hobby in themselves), there are far better ways, here in 2022. Not to take anything away from Dave Smith, he was brilliant and his synths were the best you could get, in their day.
  - tbatchelli 4y ago
    I see where you are coming from, but one of the things that I didn’t understand until recently, when I got an OB-6, is how much these synths are music instruments (vs. something you can use to make a track). They are closer to a guitar or a violin than they are to a any of the VST. I love playing the ob-6 way more than any other digital thing that I have owned, but I don’t feel like sequencing it as much. From the music producer perspective, your point of view sounds very true to me. Sometimes these synths are harder to get in the mix than a digital one, or a VST, as they take too much space! And using them is less convenient than a plug-in. But playing a VST feels much less exciting than one of these analogs. And I am saying this while owning a Virus, a digitone keys and Ableton Live.
    - ushakov 4y ago
      have you compare OB-6 to others? how does it sounds compared to Prophet 6?
      - i_am_proteus 4y ago
        OB-6 sounds very good compared to Prophet 6. Prophet 6 sounds very good compared to OB-6. :)
      - tbatchelli 4y ago
        I have played others, yes. Architecturally, OB-6 and Prophet 6 are very similar as they share a lot of the same circuitry. They are both great synths, and I am sure I'd love a prophet 6 if I had one. But I always perk up when I hear the Oberheim sound, more so than the prophet sound, and I do like very much the state-variable filter, which is not found in the P6. I enjoy making pad sounds with a notch filter, and be able to modulate it's shape towards a LP and a HP filters. Compared to the Virus, the OB-6 sounds more alive when played with a keyboard. It's nuanced when played like this, sometimes like an old piano, where the Virus sounds equally full but very precise, which is great when sequenced and you want a bassline that sounds pristine, for example. I find the Digitone a bit in-between, as you can get pretty creative with the FM algos, and it also sounds very hi-fi.

Another explanation that I've heard is that R&D for synthesizers in the 1980s and 1990s got brutally expensive, and a lot of companies just didn't make the transition.

jdkee 4y ago

Building synthesizers out of discrete components was simply far more expensive than using digital technology to create and modulate various sound waveforms. The Yamaha DX was far cheaper to manufacture than the polyphonics Prophet 5, Oberheim OB-Xa, or monophonic Minimoog. The DX was lighter and more reliable, produced a wide array of sounds, and was easier to keep in tune despite being more difficult to program for useful sounds. Many DX users used the stock sound patches except for Brian Eno and a handful of others who could dive into FM synthesis. See https://hub.yamaha.com/keyboards/synthesizers/discovering-digital-fm-john-chowning-remembers/ https://hub.yamaha.com/keyboards/synthesizers/discovering-di...

dietrichepp 4y ago
I don't think that's really an accurate account. The Minimoog and Prophet 5 are both from the 1970s. Despite the Minimoog's status as a collector's item today, it had roughly the same retail price as the DX7 in the 1980s--around $2000 USD. The Prophet 5 was more expensive at $4000, but it was also an incredibly successful, flagship synthesizer. Of the synthesizers listed--Prophet 5, Oberheim OB-Xa, and Minimoog, only the Minimoog was made primarily out of discrete components. The others relied heavily on integrated circuits from SSM or CEM. (Obviously they all contain discrete components--but the synth modules in a Prophet 5 or Oberheim OB-Xa are basically ICs with some support circuitry.) Sequential went out of business after developing the Prophet VS. Although it bears the "Prophet" name, it is a digital (or hybrid) synthesizer. It uses wavetables (like the PPG), but four of them simultaneously, with a Curtis VCF. It had a novel architecture (therefore confusing), the synthesizer itself was expensive, and there were some QA issues. It used TMS DSPs plus some custom ICs designed by Sequential. Apparently, during the design of the Prophet VS, there were various problems with the ICs that were fixed with kludges--Sequential wasn't in a financial position to make revisions to the ICs. In other words, the R&D cost for digital synths was too high.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  By the mid-80s the analogs were seen as last decade's sound for last year's people. They were immensely unfashionable, and by the beginning of the 90s they were being sold off for bargain prices. The low end of the analog market had been captured by budget polysynths from Korg and especially Roland which had most of the sound at much less of the price. The problem wasn't the cost of digital R&D, it was commoditisation which turned a high-margin super expensive boutique professional market into a low-margin semi-pro and amateur commodity market with cheaper, less exclusive and less prestigious products. The high-end market essentially disappeared and so do its distribution and promo channels. What was left supported a much smaller number of companies. All of the headline synth companies went under at that point, no matter what tech they used - Sequential, Oberheim, Moog, PPG, ARP, Ensoniq, E-mu, and even Fairlight and eventually Synclavier. As well as also-rans like Octave, Gleeman, Crumar and Siel. Korg also went under and were bought out by Yamaha. Yamaha survived because it's a huge zaibatsu with deep pockets. Even with the DX7 the synth division is a sidenote on its bottom line. Roland are also a huge corporation - mostly immensely profitable while also having street-level cool - and weathered the 80s and early 90s with some functional but clever hybrid models at relatively affordable prices. Around 2005 the boutique market started to reappear, but aimed less at professionals and more at now-affluent collectors and dabblers who "always wanted one of those", and/or are willing to drop $$$$$ on something spendy just to prove they can. So you get hipster-toy module makers in the Eurorack space, wildly overpriced Veblen toys like the OP 1, remakes of Classic Brands™, and various clones and reissues in both hardware and software form. It's very nostalgic and backward looking, and I suspect there will be another shakeout before the end of the decade.
  - piva00 4y ago
    > So you get hipster-toy module makers in the Eurorack space Which are used by artists all around (from amateur hobbyists to professional acts), they aren't "toy modules", there's been a lot of innovation in Eurorack and painting all of them as "toys" is a huge disservice to the whole format...
  - radiowave 4y ago
    What ended up working during the late 80s and through the 90s were ASICs that could be reused in areas other than just "pure" synthesizers - digital pianos, home organs, PC soundcards (IIRC both Emu and Ensoniq ended up being bought by Creative, the SoundBlaster company). So this worked out well for those companies that were in a position to do a good job of both the ASIC and logic board development, and also use the resulting technology to address those broader markers - Yamaha being the pre-eminant example. (I agree with the point about the DX7 being a sidenote, but I'd say that all the other product lines that the tech eventually flowed into will have ended up being rather more than just a sidenote.) Regarding the current market, despite all the retreads, I do think there's more interesting stuff going on than there has been for a long time (certainly in comparison to the analogue synth revival of the 90s), and I hope that manages to continue happening, even as I also kind of hope that the retro-appeal stuff will simmer down a bit.
robbrown451 4y ago
Yes and cheaper still is to just use the computer you already have to be your synth. I don't think there are any advantages today of using an analogue synth. Software synths can not only do all those "fat" sounds but can do a really good job of synthesizing real instruments such as an acoustic piano. (see Pianoteq, for instance, which does not use sampling to create instrument sounds) I find analogue synths pretty fascinating but if you are just using them to make music (as opposed to a hobby in themselves), there are far better ways, here in 2022. Not to take anything away from Dave Smith, he was brilliant and his synths were the best you could get, in their day.
- tbatchelli 4y ago
  I see where you are coming from, but one of the things that I didn’t understand until recently, when I got an OB-6, is how much these synths are music instruments (vs. something you can use to make a track). They are closer to a guitar or a violin than they are to a any of the VST. I love playing the ob-6 way more than any other digital thing that I have owned, but I don’t feel like sequencing it as much. From the music producer perspective, your point of view sounds very true to me. Sometimes these synths are harder to get in the mix than a digital one, or a VST, as they take too much space! And using them is less convenient than a plug-in. But playing a VST feels much less exciting than one of these analogs. And I am saying this while owning a Virus, a digitone keys and Ableton Live.
  - ushakov 4y ago
    have you compare OB-6 to others? how does it sounds compared to Prophet 6?
    - i_am_proteus 4y ago
      OB-6 sounds very good compared to Prophet 6. Prophet 6 sounds very good compared to OB-6. :)
    - tbatchelli 4y ago
      I have played others, yes. Architecturally, OB-6 and Prophet 6 are very similar as they share a lot of the same circuitry. They are both great synths, and I am sure I'd love a prophet 6 if I had one. But I always perk up when I hear the Oberheim sound, more so than the prophet sound, and I do like very much the state-variable filter, which is not found in the P6. I enjoy making pad sounds with a notch filter, and be able to modulate it's shape towards a LP and a HP filters. Compared to the Virus, the OB-6 sounds more alive when played with a keyboard. It's nuanced when played like this, sometimes like an old piano, where the Virus sounds equally full but very precise, which is great when sequenced and you want a bassline that sounds pristine, for example. I find the Digitone a bit in-between, as you can get pretty creative with the FM algos, and it also sounds very hi-fi.