11 ms·

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

336 points by ingve 2y ago

recursive 2y ago
> 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 increasing using samples.
- dylan604 2y ago
  Which is part of what makes the Mellotron such an interesting instrument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron
  - smitelli 2y ago
    "Tuning a Mellotron doesn't." —Robert Fripp
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  You can totally tweak the filter and amp of samples. Don’t believe be - run a sample with the LP turned all the way down :)
  - recursive 2y ago
    If the sample is the master output from the synth then the filter won't be the same.
    - alfiedotwtf 2y ago
      Of course it won’t be the same, but the comment said won’t work not won’t be the same
- khedoros1 2y ago
  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.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Sure you can. Check out what Ensoniq did with digital-analog hybrids.
amiga386 2y ago
And if you want to hear it: 1. Download and install dexed: https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/ https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/ 2. Download and unpack https://hsjp.eu/downloads/Dexed/Dexed_cart_1.0.zip https://hsjp.eu/downloads/Dexed/Dexed_cart_1.0.zip 3. In dexed, load the cartridge "Original Yamaha/DX7 ROM/ROM1A" 4. Load the preset E PIANO 1 and play some Whitney Houston 5. Load the present BASS 1 and play the intro to Danger Zone. Listen to how note velocity affects the attack!
- ciroduran 2y ago
  Dexed is great!
  - amiga386 2y ago
    It is! Also, something I have only just noticed... if using the on-screen keyboard, the lower down the key you click, the harder the note is struck.
smitelli 2y ago
Yamaha’s engineers did a whole lot with very little. I can only speak to the OPL2 as used in the original AdLib PC card (and to a much smaller extent the OPL3 in Sound Blasters) but IIRC all the sounds came from a lookup table of 10-bit integers representing one quarter of a sine period. Through bit shifts and addition/subtraction, out came a stream of 13-bit floating-point-ish data that the DAC converted into countless game soundtracks and sound effects. Part of the character of the sound, aside from the whole FM-with-feedback deal, was how abrupt and coarse the envelope steps were. There was no averaging or fine interpolation; just the brutality of fast integer math.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  Interesting. Thanks! For the longest time (over 30 years) I've thought that things like the OPL3 were analog. I had no idea that those synth things were happening in numberland.
- ajxs 2y ago
  Here's some more technical information about the OPL2, including some images of the decapped chip: https://yehar.com/blog/?p=665 https://yehar.com/blog/?p=665 The 4-operator FM synths that Yamaha produced from the DX100 (OPP/YM2164) onwards get that characteristic 'lo-fi' sound from the length of the log-sin table. The 4-operator chips used 256 samples for the quarter log-sin wave, whereas the DX7 had 1024 samples. As you increase the length of the sine table, the timbre gets much 'smoother'. See also: https://www.righto.com/2021/11/reverse-engineering-yamaha-dx7.html https://www.righto.com/2021/11/reverse-engineering-yamaha-dx...
glimshe 2y ago
FM synth is tough to tame, but the possibilities are endless. More so than the standard subtractive VA that most synths use. I feel that we haven't yet fully explored what FM has to offer!
- xanderlewis 2y ago
  Try listening to early 2010s Skrillex!
  - adzm 2y ago
    That's totally wavetable synthesis though right?
    - vvillena 2y ago
      FM plus distortion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbFcjn_08Fo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbFcjn_08Fo
- fuhsnn 2y ago
  >I feel that we haven't yet fully explored what FM has to offer! Processing power prevented a lot of fun possibilities, if one day consumer CPU become power enough to do 1Mhz upsampled DSP with ease, we can brute-force a lot weirder wave shaping algorithms without too much aliasing.
0xcde4c3db 2y ago
The article mentions PC sound cards, but this family of synthesizer chips was pretty common in video games overall ca. 1985-1995. They were used in Master System, Genesis, Neo Geo, Capcom CPS1/CPS2, Sega System 16, Midway Y-Unit/T-Unit, Namco System 1/2, and too many one-off Data East, Konami, and Taito boards to count.
ajxs 2y ago
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 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-dx7.html 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXt_NXjc7oY There are a lot of software emulations of the DX7 that are quite realistic, like the amazing Dexed. Here's one that deserves a lot of credit for how accurate it is: https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7 https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7
- fuhsnn 2y ago
  >Here's one that deserves a lot of credit for how accurate it is: https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7 https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7 I read "bit-accurate" and immediately went Ctrl+F "rate": "It then resamples from the native 49khz sample rate", yeah, this one is serious!
- skywal_l 2y ago
  Somehow related, another excellent youtube channel on old retro keyboards: https://www.youtube.com/c/KeenOnKeys https://www.youtube.com/c/KeenOnKeys
- jdblair 2y ago
  The design of the DX7 ASIC is really quite astonishing. They used every trick they could think of to make it work given the technology limitations, like a 96-step shift register and using a lookup table to produce the sine wave. The lookup table is clever, too, storing only half the table, and storing log2() of the values instead of the original value so they can use addition instead of multiplication to compute the operators.
  - throw_m239339 2y ago
    and all these tricks to generate oscillators are still used to this day in digital hardware and software synthesizers: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/803386d5-d47a-47b2-8f09-e25dee6618d6/content https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/803386d...
MarcelOlsz 2y ago
Hey this is the synth I started with way back! I used this[0] 3 hour video to teach me the ins and outs of sound synthesis from the NY School of Synthesis by Dean Friedman. It still holds up today as it did back then for anyone trying to get into synths. [0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFa4_po__8wMNscyFfDy6Dn-_hZdtr-jo https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFa4_po__8wMNscyFfDy6...
satori99 2y ago
> The use of mathematics to produce sounds resembling real instruments quickly became obsolete once we could just go out and sample the real thing. Sampling is a boring, brute-force approach to sound synthesis, but it’s a relatively straightforward one, now we have the computing power and memory. I guess this is true, but the next thing to come along that made me leave the DX7 at home was an Ensoniq EPS-16+. https://www.vintagesynth.com/ensoniq/eps-16 https://www.vintagesynth.com/ensoniq/eps-16
- ajxs 2y ago
  On the subject of Ensoniq, here's a great article written about them and the huge impact they had on the music industry: https://reverb.com/news/history-of-ensoniq-samplers-mirage-eps-16-plus-asr-10 https://reverb.com/news/history-of-ensoniq-samplers-mirage-e...
- nkozyra 2y ago
  And to be fair, there's physical modeling, which in general comes much closer to simulating, well, physical instruments. I think FM is inferior at this if only because harmonics/overtones have less variability.
- Foobar8568 2y ago
  There is an obvious sounds to pianoteq which is basic the best place ano modeler out there. We are closed to the real thing but so far at the same time.
- TheAmazingRace 2y ago
  Fun fact, one of the founders of Ensoniq, Bob Yannes, came up with the legendary SID chip found in the Commodore 64.
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
I had one. I wrote MIDI software. I wasn’t a particularly good keyboardist. Pretty damn powerful, and a "pure" synthesizer. Too complicated for a lot of musicians. Things really took off, when samplers hit the scene. People were much more comfortable modifying existing sounds, as opposed to creating them from whole cloth.
spamizbad 2y ago
> Building an analog synthesizer that was polyphonic – where many keys could be played at the same time – was stupendously expensive. The same electronic circuitry had to be duplicated many times, sometimes for each key. These instruments were mostly of academic interest – I can’t think of any band that used one on stage (but I could be wrong). Divide-down synths like the Arp Solina and Omni were widely used in live bands and weren’t that difficult to trek around for the period. Certainly lighter than the contemporary transistor organs of the era True Analog polysynths were also used extensively live going back to the late 70s with the arrival of the Prophet 5, Roland Jupiter 4 - and by the early 80s (before the DX7 arrived) there were a tons of artists performing with them live.
coldtea 2y ago
>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 synthesis makes no logical sense"? He writes like FM went away. While DX7 itself was eventually retired (and synths like M1 became popular), Yamaha made several further flagship FM synths, and FM synthesis is still widely popular, used in both plugin form (including several DX7 emulations plus lots of fresh FM implementations), modern dedicated FM synths (e.g. Korg Opsix, Elektron Digitone), and of course as FM sound engines in multi-engine synths (FM-X in Yamaha's keyboards like Montage and MODX, Hydrasynth's FM mode, Nord's FM engine, to name but a few). There are even boutique options (ReFace DX, Volca FM). And of course even vintage DX7s go for a quite high price in second+ hand market...
- MBCook 2y ago
  From what follows after that I think they were referring to the configuration interface being effectively unusable by most people when they said “makes no logical sense“.
  - musicale 2y ago
    The tiny LCD UI was a typical cost-cutting measure for synths from that era and isn't unique to FM or even digital synths. I bought a vintage Yamaha TX81z (they're cheap on ebay) and while it features a tiny LCD UI it also comes with a very logical diagram printed on the top of the case. Yamaha's user manuals are also well written. I've enjoyed making dozens of FM synth patches on all sorts of instruments (perhaps because I am attracted to the FM sounds that you still hear all the time in pop and dance music.) At the end of the day most synthesis methods boil down to two knobs: signal amplitude and spectral complexity, and FM isn't that different, especially with a single oscillator/operator pair.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  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 designer or you buy patches online, you’re better off getting a Digitone for “simpler” FM or just stick to the MODX’s excellent sampled acoustic instruments. Yeah… the MODX/Montage UI is really bad and feels like something out of 2004.
miunau 2y ago
My DX7 take is this: I don't think time has made any other synth less desirable to own than the original DX7's. - Keyboard velocity maxes out at 100 and the action sucks. - Membrane buttons. - Weighs way too much. - Dinky 2-line screen for controlling dozens and dozens of parameters using one slider. You can run the entire thing completely correct off of a chip the size of a fingernail these days, so there's no practical reason to own one. No wonder the prices have dunked lately. Even the FB-01 is a much better proposition, at least it only takes up half a rack.
- alfiedotwtf 2y ago
  Nah, I’d recommend the Yamaha DX Reface for something that’s a direct DX linage but compact (or you can use a MIDI controller if you want more than 37 keys).
  - alterom 2y ago
    Seconding the Reface DX recommendation. It makes FM programming enjoyable. I never figured Dexed or FM-7 out, even though the soft synths and the screen real estate would seem like an ideal match for FM synthesis. But no, I feel like I only started to grok FM with Reface DX.
  - wazoox 2y ago
    Yep, I really like my little reface DX, it's reasonably easy to tweak sounds, and with the help of the free reface DX editor panel ( https://refacedx.martintarenskeen.nl/ https://refacedx.martintarenskeen.nl/ ) you can load any patch for 4-op FM synth of yore (DX 9, DX 11, TX81Z) into it.
- steve1977 2y ago
  The key action sucks? The FS keybed is considered one of the best synth actions by many, it’s interesting you say that. It was used in the Korg M1 and other Korg synths for example and lives on as the lead-free FSX in the Montage flagship synths of Yamaha.
ed-209 2y ago
As a former owner and synth head, I feel the DX7 was good for poorly simulating a broad range of superior instruments. Also it wasn't merely difficult to program - it made sound design a necessarily separate activity from playing due to the notorious programming UX. Revolutionary and a nifty museum piece. Relating to it's influence on 80s music, this oft repeated claim is laughable. Tom Oberheim and the late Dave Smith had demonstrably greater influence with the OB-X* and Prophet lines reigning supreme and offering lasting sonic contributions.
- fuhsnn 2y ago
  >poorly simulating a broad range of superior instruments Nothing touches FM's velocity responsiveness until physical modeling, it sounds lame when you get used to it, but the same thing is true to the romplers that replaced it. >Relating to it's influence on 80s music 80s is quite broad, claims like this basically just showed which artists the writer prefer. Personally, it's PPG and Moog.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    > Nothing touches FM's velocity responsiveness ??? You can make any synthesis velocity responsive. Oberheim had it, there were Rolands in the DCO era. Vangelis mastered it on the CS80. The DX7 simply made velocity sensitive keys widely available, and critically Yamaha baked velocity sensitivity into every patch.
    - pantulis 2y ago
      Not forgetting aftertouch.
    - vvillena 2y ago
      The FM trick is that the available parameters that can be modulated through velocity result in a wider range of tonal variation, where traditional subtractive synthesis is usually simpler, and velocity changes affect parameters that don't result in wide changes to the tone, such as volume or filter envelopes. With FM, modifying an operator envelope can result in a completely different sound. A well-crafted patch that takes advantage of this, played by a good keyboardist, will feel alive, in a way traditional synths of that time couldn't achieve.
mastazi 2y ago
Anthony Marinelli (film composer and synth programmer for many artists including Micheal Jackson) recently made a series of documentaries about FM Synthesis and its inventor John Chowning, the DX7 is mentioned multiple times alongside the Synclavier which used the same synthesis method but predated the DX7. About Chowning and the DX7 https://youtu.be/Mu8lHX-xuSg https://youtu.be/Mu8lHX-xuSg Other videos about FM and contemporary applications https://youtu.be/Pl7BY4C9Cg4 https://youtu.be/Pl7BY4C9Cg4 and https://youtu.be/Uoiqy5mkUKE https://youtu.be/Uoiqy5mkUKE Aboout Synclavier https://youtu.be/G5T7NBLSY0c https://youtu.be/G5T7NBLSY0c
- brudgers 2y ago
  In the future you can get a synclavier on your iphone. We live in that future. https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-go/ https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-go/
  - alterom 2y ago
    Oh, and apparently there's a new hardware desktop Synclavier! Synclavier Regen weighs in at $2.5K, but then again, it was never a budget brand in the first place: https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-regen/ https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-regen/
- throw_m239339 2y ago
  The synclavier went even further with resynthesis capabilities: You would feed the synth some audio and the synclavier would attempt at reproducing the audio snippet through FM synthesis.
brudgers 2y ago
If you want a professional Yamaha FM synth from the 1980’s, the V50 is a bargain. It was the last of the DX’s and is essentially two DX9’s with a sequencer and a drum machine. For clarity, the later 4 op FM chips, have multiple wave forms and provide a sonic space as powerful as the earlier sine wave only six Op chips…they are not identical but equivalent.
- speed_spread 2y ago
  Also of note, the SY77 which bridges the best of Yamaha FM with AWM2 rompler tech.
  - pea 2y ago
    absolutely. i have an sy99 and they often go for less or equal to a dx7, and they are much more of a powerhouse. can't recommend enough
uuddlrlrbaba 2y ago
The DX7 is an incredible synth, but one of the joys of playing is hearing the sound change to your adjustments and the DX7 just doesn't do that. But it is great fun to feed through filter, delay and reverb pedals. Thats kind of the best of both worlds
- fsckboy 2y ago
  just for the audience, the DX7 used a newly invented type of synthesis (FM but that doesn't tell you or anybody else anything) and it was alone among synths at the time to produce metallic, brass, bell, etc. sounds. Performers flocked to it to get away from the same old analog synth sound everybody else had. FM synths are programmable, but not easily, and the menu diving was not practical while playing. Analog (subtractive) synths are very much back in popularity right now and they offer lots of knobs to give bwahgrrrssshhhhwow type transformations
- alterom 2y ago
  >The DX7 is an incredible synth, but one of the joys of playing is hearing the sound change to your adjustments and the DX7 just doesn't do that ...but Yamaha Reface DX does. I've been changing the sound while playing the synth to go from the ePiano preset to an aggressive synth lead as a demo of that interface. It's pure joy, and an underrated piece of hardware.
  - surfingdino 2y ago
    It's even better with the Dtronics expander, but still too much faff for me.
    - alterom 2y ago
      Thanks, I didn't know about it - and it seems like an awesome addition to the machine!
fsckboy 2y ago
>They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard Greg Kihn Band Breakup Song with the unforgettable lyric, "they don't write 'em like that any more" did not use the DX7 at least because it was not available in 1981, but the keyboardist Gary Philips was known to use Minimoog, Prophet-5, Wurlitzer, Rhodes and Yamaha pianos with the band. In 1983 Gary Philips was an early adopter of the DX7. They don't make them like that any more either.
- Mountain_Skies 2y ago
  I didn't know how to play the keyboard but the DX7 was seen in so many music videos in the 80s that it became an object of desire for me. If I were going to learn how to play the keyboard, it was going to be on the DX7! To me it was the Lamborghini of keyboards. I had zero understanding of synths or even basic music theory. I just knew all the cool bands had a DX7 and I wanted to be like the cool guys on saw on MTV. We eventually got some cheap consumer keyboard from K-Mart which was completely forgotten by New Years Day. As an aside, I find it's a bit weird how overlooked the Greg Kihn Band is in current 80s culture. It might not have been as big as Michael Jackson or Chicago but they were quite well known. Weird Al even did a parody of one of their songs but their cultural impact seems to have not survived as well as other acts of that era, which is a pity.
  - __mharrison__ 2y ago
    As an aside to an aside, Greg Kihn became a DJ for a classic rock station in the Bay area that I used to listen to. Even then I only know one of his songs.
  - larrywright 2y ago
    Same, but in my case it was the Roland D-50.
esafak 2y ago
> An interesting development was the discovery that, if the operators started with square, rather than sine, waveforms, it didn’t take as many operators to create interesting sounds. Is this true? How and why? I imagine the square basis also contributed to the brilliance, not being band-limited.
- rjh29 2y ago
  It has the most harmonics.
  - alterom 2y ago
    Just to add: harmonics are sine waves, in essence. A pure sine wave has only one harmonic. You need to add up a bunch of sine waves of different frequencies (multiples of the fundamental) to get something as, in a way, unnatural as a square (or sawtooth) wave. That's why they're great building blocks for subtractive synthesis too. Pass them through a resonant filter, and you get something interesting. They are also very easy to make digitally (a square wave is just on-off-on-off..).
yowlingcat 2y ago
DX7 will always have a special place in my heart being the spiritual predecessor to my favorite soft synth, FM8. If you want a modern FM synthesis experience, FM8 has been that for over a decade. Low CPU usage, incredibly versatile, really easy to work with in the mix (FM synthesis tends to be easy to shape and layer spectrally).
- sixthDot 2y ago
  > being the spiritual predecessor There was the FM7 before. It already fixed the UX/UI problems of the hardware version.
IAmGraydon 2y ago
Yamaha basically still makes the DX7 in a modernized form in the Reface DX. It just has 4 operators instead of 6, but it can create various waveshapes whereas the DX7 can only create sine waves so it requires more operators to achieve the more complex shapes. Also, Korg makes the Volca FM, which is actually a clone of the original Yamaha engine and you can actually directly load DX7 patches into it. >There remains a niche interest in generating instrumental sounds using mathematical modelling, but almost all digital music production these days is based on sampling. Yeah...that's just completely untrue.
- peapicker 2y ago
  Korg Opsix can also load Dx7 patches, and has all six ops. And many waveforms beyond sine. And other weird shit you can use instead of an oscillator in an operator spot, like a comb filter and other things. Tons of fun.
fooker 2y ago
If you have a techie friend from India ask if they have an old TVS Gold keyboard. Pretty nice model m clones.
chubs 2y ago
I recently was obsessed with FM for a while! If you want a bit of fun, here’s a synth I made, the codes fairly simple if you want to poke around, you can fool with parameters easily. Doesn’t work great on mobile though. https://chrishulbert.github.io/you-synth/ https://chrishulbert.github.io/you-synth/
atorodius 2y ago
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?
- markusw 2y ago
  You’re missing MIDI controllers, of which there are plenty. :) Synth versions without the keys are often called “desktop versions”.
- bowsamic 2y ago
  There are a huge number of MIDI controllers and keyboardless synths
- alterom 2y ago
  > 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 good keyboard controllers that you can plug into a Eurorack if you're a Eurorack player. Many synths haverack mount versions. You're missing nothing in that sense. Your question isn't about the industry. It's about musicians. You're asking why musicians other than you still want complete instruments. The answer is simple. People who play other instruments need other instruments. Of which the keyboard can be an integral part. You might as well ask why people still buy hardware synths when perfectly good software synthesizers exist. The answer is the same: they play differently (that applies both to the machines and the performers). Here are some reasons why synths come with built-in keyboards. The most important reason: — Keyboards are mechanical instruments with particular response curves. The patches the synth comes with can be optimized to play and sound good on the keyboard the synth ships with. This guarantees quality out-of-the-box, consistency, and makes it so that your presets would feel the same when your play them on another device. Yamaha DX-7 played with an 88 weighted keys keyboard is a different, and a worse instrument. As is a Clavinova played when DX-7 as a controller. — Ergonomics matter. Each synthesizer is unique in the way it builds its sounds, which is why many come with dedicated controls (buttons, knobs, sliders, screens). Where these controls are in relation to the keyboard matters. I can play drum pads while playing the keys on my Akai Mini Play 3, for example, but not on my larger Yamahas. I can tweak the patches on the Reface DX live, but not if I used the MX-88 as a controller. — Physical layout matters. Performers to look the audience, not the knobs; the audience wants the performer to look at them. Memorizing the layout by touch isn't possible when the layout isn't fixed. For gigging musicians, the following are important: — portability — physical robustness — time to set up on stage — space on stage — physical setup — ability to move while performing Having more cables to connect isn't something gigging musicians want when you have 5 minutes to set up for a 30 minute set at a dimly lit bar. And then there's the setup. You put a stand on a stage, there goes your controller. Where does the synth go? Oh, you need another table or stand for the synth. Now to tweak a patch. Your controller may not have all the knobs your synth engine uses. The sound module has them, but it's on the table over there, while you're playing facing the audience over here. Bummer. Finally, I have straps for some of my keyboards, so I can move around the stage during the show. 1/4" cables are long, and made to withstand abuse; USB plugs agent, and MIDI cables, while better, aren't made for that either. There are also marketing reasons: — A synth that people can try in a store is more appealing than one they can't. Rackmount synths don't make for good displays. If people have inconsistent experience trying the instrument, it doesn't bode well for the brand. — When someone plays a Nord keyboard, you know it, because it has a distinctive look. Musicians take note of other musicians' gear. — An instrument that can't make any sound on its own is not an instrument, it's a module. It's a different product. And then we get to psychological reasons: — Performers are deeply attached to their instruments. A sound module without a keyboard isn't an instrument. A controller isn't an instrument. Together, they form a system made up of components; it doesn't feel as an instrument the same way a guitar does. — Looks matter. Performers want to look good on stage. And a generic controller simply doesn't look as good as a complete instrument, with a dedicated interface. — Feels matter. The feedback one gets from touching and playing the instrument affects the performance. And that's before we get into things like: — busking — jamming with other people — playing outdoors (I played my Reface DX in the mountains and at campfires, in the streets and on the road) The TL;DR, though, is that if you want a controller for your Eurorack, you've got it. Saying that's how everyone should make music, though, is quite a reach.
knvlt 2y ago
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 patches: https://www.burnkit2600.com/manuals/fm_theory_and_applications.pdf https://www.burnkit2600.com/manuals/fm_theory_and_applicatio...
- Intermernet 2y ago
  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.
  - musicale 2y ago
    As I noted in another comment, you can start out, and get pretty far, with just a single operator pair, which basically determines the waveform and spectral complexity. For me it has a similar feel (unsurprisingly enough) to analog FM, ring modulation, or oscillator sync.
  - knvlt 2y ago
    Yes! Dexed is great and I would recommend trying the samples from the book with it. You need a bit of exploration, to get a grasp whats going on.
azalemeth 2y ago
> "My Kawai stage piano has about forty different instrumental sounds, all produced from samples of real instruments. Apart from the string sounds: I believe it creates those by tormenting cats on Xanax." I don't quite know why but the author is really correct on synth strings. I've got a few friends who are fantastic semi pro strings players and the expressionism of their instruments are phenomenal -- I've sung with them a lot and played orchestrally as well. Synth strings inevitably sound like synth strings. I'm sure there's a realistic sampler somewhere on the planet but I've never come remotely close to discovering one that is any good ...
- grp 2y ago
  Regarding synth strings, maybe Roland Integra-7 (and stuff like that) can do the trick.
- tgv 2y ago
  Synth strings sound like the original "string synthesizers" like the Solina String Ensemble (famously present in Jarre's Oxygene, albeit played on somewhat different instrument, and through a phaser). They tend to be scratchy, nasally, thin, etc. Sampled strings cen be really convincing. Listen e.g. to https://vi-control.net/community/threads/phaeton-symphony-by-saint-saens-spitfire-symphonic-orchestra.106905/ https://vi-control.net/community/threads/phaeton-symphony-by...
block_dagger 2y ago
Now it’s the Nord Stage series that is the crown jewel of gigging keyboardists. I sold off my Fender Rhodes and Hohner Clavinet years ago when I bought my first Nord. Nothing can take the place of a real B3/Leslie though!
surfingdino 2y ago
FM synthesis is a bit like Lisp--everybody says it's cool, but getting acceptable results is harder than with another approach. When I need FM, I use Arturia's _DX7 V plugin and only play presets.
_7acn 2y ago
But 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 nothing "goes out of use" and it cannot become obsolete.
- JoeyJoJoJr 2y ago
  Synthstrom Deluge is also going to have DX7 emulation soon.I can’t wait to have a DX7 in a powerful groove box. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=84EENKfeV8M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=84EENKfeV8M
- consf 2y ago
  [dead]
- jacobr1 2y ago
  Any recommendations for a starter synth? Something polyphonic, and has the ability to mess around to create new sounds (so analogue controls, but it could still be digital behind the scenes). I'd like some presets, but not be limited to them. What is on the market at a reasonable price point (under or around $500) that fits this profile?
  - schwartzworld 2y ago
    There's a lot of affordable choices depending on what you want, but everything has tradeoffs. I love my Microfreak, but it only has 4 voices of polyphony, a weird keybed and no onboard effects. That said it makes amazing sounds and has a very discoverable set of controls, and since I play guitar I have external effect pedals at home anyway. If you're not committed to hardware, a nice midi controller and a software synth will let you learn without spending big bucks. And even then the midi controller is optional.
  - honkycat 2y ago
    Hydrasynth Explorer Minifreak buying used off of ebay / reverb is fine Or get a Arturia MiniLab 3, it comes with a synth package and can control anything on your computer. Good free synths: - Dexed - Vital - Odin - Pianobook / Decent Sampler
moomin 2y ago
Brian 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.
- Supernaut 2y ago
  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-for-yamaha-dx-7-1984-blue https://reverb.com/item/21724471-jellinghaus-dx-programmer-f...
  - moomin 2y ago
    Thank you for the correction! Managed to get it under the edit window as well so I can acknowledge it.
odiroot 2y ago
Yes they don't make them like that anymore. Most synthesisers nowadays have much better user interface.
TrackerFF 2y ago
Still use mine for bass sounds. Nightmare to program by hand on the fly, but it has its classic sounds.
TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
>These instruments were mostly of academic interest – I can’t think of any band that used one on stage (but I could be wrong). Very 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.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Came to quibble with the “no bands gigged polysynths” slander as well. They did, but only for about a 5 year window where it was economically feasible. There’s Sequential Prophet 5 all over Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense. Van Halen famously used an Oberheim. Basically any record in the first half of the 80s if it had synths.
somemisopaste 2y ago
One of my favorite videos on the internet involves DX7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ
- chrismorgan 2y ago
  That was painful, but I couldn’t quite look away. At 4:00, I was the one with the distressed look. But I can’t deny that the end result was startlingly realistic in general, though obviously still a bit overdone.
dep_b 2y ago
Yamaha keyboards were top notch. I had a SY-85 with the nicest keyboard I've ever used for my purposes. Good feel, velocity sensitive but non weighted, fully polyphonic aftertouch.
JodieBenitez 2y ago
For those of you more interested in the synthesis than the keyboard, the Elektron Digitone is one of the easiest FM synth to use, while still capable of an incredible variety of sounds. For a software recreation of the DX7, see the Dexed plugin.
larsbrinkhoff 2y ago
FM synthesis was developed by John Chowning on the Stanford AI lab PDP-6 and PDP-10.
samuell 2y ago
I learned to play the keyboard on my father's DX11, in the late80s/early 90s, and remember the sounds with warmth. The DX11 doesn't seem to have been at all as well known or iconic though, and have only seen the DX7 being written extensively about. It seems to have been quite closely related to the DX7 though, based on some info I found:https://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/dx11 https://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/dx11
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
squarefoot 2y ago
I lived that era, and don't miss the DX7 at all. Yes, when it came out it was revolutionary and if you wanted to produce very thin sounds, (some) credible organs, really nice electric pianos, punching basses, and metallic sounding instruments that one was the keyboard to use, no doubt, but the drawback was that almost everything else would sound terrible, I mean really awful. Additive synth is great only if done well, and the first DX synthesizer were a lot limited in some fields; if you tried to make a track only using a DX7 it would be a compromise wrapped around other compromises. For starters, operators could generate only sine waves, and every other waveform had to be emulated by frequency modulating an operator by another synced operator; that could be used to make some really interesting effects and sounds, but no way one could produce for example believable strings; they were just terrible. Also it had no filters, that is, no VCF/DCF/whatever, so no way to produce credible sweeps or warm pads that would have been trivial to produce with a 10 years older keyboard. DX7 has been revolutionary for sure, but had its share of limitations, and (plugins aside, of course) rather than spending money on a vintage DX7, I'd get a smaller and much cheaper FM expander to be driven together in unison with a traditional analog sounding one; the 1st one for the aggressive attack, the 2nd one for more warmth. As for additive synth, I deeply regret having sold my Kawai K5000 years ago; that was really a beast. Heck, That applies pretty much to all my old gear, but sometimes one is forced to, only to regret much later.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sho_hn 2y ago
> The use of mathematics to produce sounds resembling real instruments quickly became obsolete once we could just go out and sample the real thing. No. One of the most popular piano VSTs on the market is Pianoteq, which uses physical modelling of the instrument rather than being sample-based. It's often considered one of the most realistic-sounding piano VSTs all the same (they have models of many popular acoustic models, authorized by their builders), and offers a much higher degree of dynamism and reactivity than sample-based ones, and much more flexibility in simulated microphone placement, etc. This approach is still leading-edge in places.
micahscopes 2y ago
I worked on the sound effects and music for the game Wilderplace and used WebDX7 for all of the sound (everything but some sculpted white noise for rain as DX7 doesn't offer pure noise or filters). All the sequencing/synthesis happens real-time in the game. DX7 was crazy fun to work with, like working with clay or something... DX7 patches have this way of layering with each other that feels both clear and warm at the same time. They don't accumulate mud in the same way that sample-based instruments do. They do have this challenge of accumulating digital-sounding cruft, but I think this is part of their gritty, organic beauty. Okay but that said I'd love to experience a stereo GPU-based FM synth with high dynamic range and a fully configurable operator graph.
jfactorial 2y ago
Fun fact: The Taco Bell bell gong sound is an E on the DX7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBrC_l-VCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBrC_l-VCs
- catketch 2y ago
  sounds like the bell in the opening of the top gun theme
- consf 2y ago
  [dead]
masto 2y ago
I can appreciate these instruments now, especially in their historical context, legacy in music, and from a technical perspective. But I still carry a 30 year old dislike of "that FM sound", for the dumbest of reasons: I was in college in the 90s. My roommate had a PC with a Soundblaster card, and he played this Star Wars game incessantly. It has a terrible, insipid, repetitive, infuriatingly annoying soundtrack that I grew to despise with every molecule of my being, mostly because I was subjected to it as an eternal everlasting torment, but also because I had an Amiga and my computer was clearly superior in every way especially when it came to sound. Anyway, hearing this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexOZwatuLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexOZwatuLg - constantly caused me to associate all FM sounds, even in good music, with this cheap "wah wah wah ee ee wah wah wah" noise, which I've only partly shaken decades after the trauma. Also, when he wasn't playing that one, he was playing this Dune game (https://youtu.be/gOscXf0Fpmk?si=hUZ8g0GZ48CKfKzh&t=7394 https://youtu.be/gOscXf0Fpmk?si=hUZ8g0GZ48CKfKzh&t=7394) with a more varied but equally cheap sound, and on top of that playing the game triggers the most repetitive samples ever devised by man. Reporting, acknowledged, reporting, acknowledged... oh, the torture. Where was I? Ah, that's why I'm not a fan of FM synthesizers.
cesaref 2y ago
There was mention of the sound becoming 'dull' at the higher octaves. This is not a limitation of the DAC as was suggested, but caused by the phase modulation algorithm aliasing badly at the top of the range. Basically the modulation causes higher harmonics to appear in the output, and if these are higher than nyquist (half the sampling rate) they reflect back into the audible range, and produce unpleasant very digital sounding artifacts. So, the DX designers avoid this by adding keyboard scaling for the operators - as you play higher up the keyboard, sounds could reduce the amount of modulation applied, and hence reduce the level of the aliases till they were inaudible. Unfortunately if done too aggressively, this will lead to a noticeable reduction in the harmonic complexity of the tone, which is perceived as a dull tone.
- ajxs 2y ago
  Great post! I always thought that the keyboard scaling was entirely for musical purposes. Such as emulating the difference in timbre in a plucked instrument as you go up in pitch. One of the main DX7 patents talks about adding an averaging filter in the path of the feedback mechanism. Averaging the current sample with the last one helps prevent the high-frequency aliasing. There's also a 16Khz low-pass filter on the main output. Here's a very in-depth look at the behaviour of feedback FM: https://ristoid.net/modular/fm_variants.html https://ristoid.net/modular/fm_variants.html
  - sixthDot 2y ago
    The one at the output cant really fix aliasing. At this point bad things have already folded in the normal spectrum.
    - ajxs 2y ago
      Yes, you're right. I could have made that clearer. I think the filter is just there to remove harsh high frequency artefacts from the final output for the sake of the overall sound.
- BlandDuck 2y ago
  I know there is a bunch of new DX7 implementations on more modern hardware, i.e., the Raspberry Pi. When implemented on modern hardware, wouldn't it be possible to run the algorithm at a higher CPU processing speed, to reduce the aliasing at the higher notes, and avoid the need for keyboard scaling and thus preserve the timbre of the higher pitched notes?
HerbieNeil 2y ago
All these erudite comments were fun to read. I can't help comparing with guitar enthusiasts who are looking out for really old Fenders and Gibsons to get the authentic old fashioned sounds. To my mind the value of a DX7 is just like that. It has a sound relevant to its time in history. It is what it was and has a soul of its own. Has time and technology produced more sophisticated instruments? Sure, but I don't think that's the point.
cesaref 2y ago
On the subject of the DAC used, and why it was 'only' 12 bit. I believe the instrument actually runs all of the voices through a single DAC, so it is basically 16x oversampled, and the voices are held by a sample and hold circuit for all 16 voices before they are summed to the analog output. If the later DX mark II is anything like the TX81z (which is also said to have a 16 bit DAC) it actually uses a 16 bit dynamic range DAC, but with a 10 bit resolution (a YM3012 for the TX - https://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/1179489/YAMAHA/YM3012.html https://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/1179489/YAMAH...) This is definitely the age of interesting DACs, with all sorts of interesting noise profiles. We're really spoilt these days with the quality from delta/sigma DACs, thinking that this has always been the case!
amelius 2y ago
Does anyone know a great mini (2 octaves or so) keyboard that is portable, fits in a backpack, has a built-in grand piano, touch sensitivity, and supports bluetooth? EDIT: I found this [1], which comes close but does not have bluetooth. [1] https://eu.loogguitars.com/products/loog-piano https://eu.loogguitars.com/products/loog-piano
crispyambulance 2y ago
I hope they DON'T make them like the DX7 anymore. What the article says is true, the DX7 sound dominated pop music for a long time. Many musicians were too uncreative (or perhaps it was too much of a hassle) to change it from the boring, over-used factory pre-sets. I seem to recall it was really, REALLY an unpleasant chore to make interesting sounds-- endless modes and everything set up with a single button.
bashinator 2y ago
DX7 is a great example of how new technologies can ruin a previously-great user experience. Going from cables and knobs and an "everything is visible at once" UX on analogs to a small LCD panel with data entry buttons was a huge regression.
lamby 2y ago
Now, how about drums; an instrument everybody loves?

336 points by ingve 2y ago

> 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 increasing using samples.

dylan604 2y ago
Which is part of what makes the Mellotron such an interesting instrument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mellotron
- smitelli 2y ago
  "Tuning a Mellotron doesn't." —Robert Fripp
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
You can totally tweak the filter and amp of samples. Don’t believe be - run a sample with the LP turned all the way down :)
- recursive 2y ago
  If the sample is the master output from the synth then the filter won't be the same.
  - alfiedotwtf 2y ago
    Of course it won’t be the same, but the comment said won’t work not won’t be the same
khedoros1 2y ago
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.
relaxing 2y ago
Sure you can. Check out what Ensoniq did with digital-analog hybrids.

amiga386 2y ago

And if you want to hear it: 1. Download and install dexed: https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/ https://asb2m10.github.io/dexed/ 2. Download and unpack https://hsjp.eu/downloads/Dexed/Dexed_cart_1.0.zip https://hsjp.eu/downloads/Dexed/Dexed_cart_1.0.zip 3. In dexed, load the cartridge "Original Yamaha/DX7 ROM/ROM1A" 4. Load the preset E PIANO 1 and play some Whitney Houston 5. Load the present BASS 1 and play the intro to Danger Zone. Listen to how note velocity affects the attack!

ciroduran 2y ago
Dexed is great!
- amiga386 2y ago
  It is! Also, something I have only just noticed... if using the on-screen keyboard, the lower down the key you click, the harder the note is struck.

smitelli 2y ago

Yamaha’s engineers did a whole lot with very little. I can only speak to the OPL2 as used in the original AdLib PC card (and to a much smaller extent the OPL3 in Sound Blasters) but IIRC all the sounds came from a lookup table of 10-bit integers representing one quarter of a sine period. Through bit shifts and addition/subtraction, out came a stream of 13-bit floating-point-ish data that the DAC converted into countless game soundtracks and sound effects. Part of the character of the sound, aside from the whole FM-with-feedback deal, was how abrupt and coarse the envelope steps were. There was no averaging or fine interpolation; just the brutality of fast integer math.

ssl-3 2y ago
Interesting. Thanks! For the longest time (over 30 years) I've thought that things like the OPL3 were analog. I had no idea that those synth things were happening in numberland.
ajxs 2y ago
Here's some more technical information about the OPL2, including some images of the decapped chip: https://yehar.com/blog/?p=665 https://yehar.com/blog/?p=665 The 4-operator FM synths that Yamaha produced from the DX100 (OPP/YM2164) onwards get that characteristic 'lo-fi' sound from the length of the log-sin table. The 4-operator chips used 256 samples for the quarter log-sin wave, whereas the DX7 had 1024 samples. As you increase the length of the sine table, the timbre gets much 'smoother'. See also: https://www.righto.com/2021/11/reverse-engineering-yamaha-dx7.html https://www.righto.com/2021/11/reverse-engineering-yamaha-dx...

glimshe 2y ago

FM synth is tough to tame, but the possibilities are endless. More so than the standard subtractive VA that most synths use. I feel that we haven't yet fully explored what FM has to offer!

xanderlewis 2y ago
Try listening to early 2010s Skrillex!
- adzm 2y ago
  That's totally wavetable synthesis though right?
  - vvillena 2y ago
    FM plus distortion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbFcjn_08Fo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbFcjn_08Fo
fuhsnn 2y ago
>I feel that we haven't yet fully explored what FM has to offer! Processing power prevented a lot of fun possibilities, if one day consumer CPU become power enough to do 1Mhz upsampled DSP with ease, we can brute-force a lot weirder wave shaping algorithms without too much aliasing.

0xcde4c3db 2y ago

The article mentions PC sound cards, but this family of synthesizer chips was pretty common in video games overall ca. 1985-1995. They were used in Master System, Genesis, Neo Geo, Capcom CPS1/CPS2, Sega System 16, Midway Y-Unit/T-Unit, Namco System 1/2, and too many one-off Data East, Konami, and Taito boards to count.

ajxs 2y ago

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 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-dx7.html 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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXt_NXjc7oY There are a lot of software emulations of the DX7 that are quite realistic, like the amazing Dexed. Here's one that deserves a lot of credit for how accurate it is: https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7 https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7

fuhsnn 2y ago
>Here's one that deserves a lot of credit for how accurate it is: https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7 https://github.com/chiaccona/VDX7 I read "bit-accurate" and immediately went Ctrl+F "rate": "It then resamples from the native 49khz sample rate", yeah, this one is serious!
skywal_l 2y ago
Somehow related, another excellent youtube channel on old retro keyboards: https://www.youtube.com/c/KeenOnKeys https://www.youtube.com/c/KeenOnKeys
jdblair 2y ago
The design of the DX7 ASIC is really quite astonishing. They used every trick they could think of to make it work given the technology limitations, like a 96-step shift register and using a lookup table to produce the sine wave. The lookup table is clever, too, storing only half the table, and storing log2() of the values instead of the original value so they can use addition instead of multiplication to compute the operators.
- throw_m239339 2y ago
  and all these tricks to generate oscillators are still used to this day in digital hardware and software synthesizers: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/803386d5-d47a-47b2-8f09-e25dee6618d6/content https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/803386d...

MarcelOlsz 2y ago

Hey this is the synth I started with way back! I used this[0] 3 hour video to teach me the ins and outs of sound synthesis from the NY School of Synthesis by Dean Friedman. It still holds up today as it did back then for anyone trying to get into synths. [0] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFa4_po__8wMNscyFfDy6Dn-_hZdtr-jo https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFa4_po__8wMNscyFfDy6...

satori99 2y ago

> The use of mathematics to produce sounds resembling real instruments quickly became obsolete once we could just go out and sample the real thing. Sampling is a boring, brute-force approach to sound synthesis, but it’s a relatively straightforward one, now we have the computing power and memory. I guess this is true, but the next thing to come along that made me leave the DX7 at home was an Ensoniq EPS-16+. https://www.vintagesynth.com/ensoniq/eps-16 https://www.vintagesynth.com/ensoniq/eps-16

ajxs 2y ago
On the subject of Ensoniq, here's a great article written about them and the huge impact they had on the music industry: https://reverb.com/news/history-of-ensoniq-samplers-mirage-eps-16-plus-asr-10 https://reverb.com/news/history-of-ensoniq-samplers-mirage-e...
nkozyra 2y ago
And to be fair, there's physical modeling, which in general comes much closer to simulating, well, physical instruments. I think FM is inferior at this if only because harmonics/overtones have less variability.
Foobar8568 2y ago
There is an obvious sounds to pianoteq which is basic the best place ano modeler out there. We are closed to the real thing but so far at the same time.
TheAmazingRace 2y ago
Fun fact, one of the founders of Ensoniq, Bob Yannes, came up with the legendary SID chip found in the Commodore 64.

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

I had one. I wrote MIDI software. I wasn’t a particularly good keyboardist. Pretty damn powerful, and a "pure" synthesizer. Too complicated for a lot of musicians. Things really took off, when samplers hit the scene. People were much more comfortable modifying existing sounds, as opposed to creating them from whole cloth.

spamizbad 2y ago

> Building an analog synthesizer that was polyphonic – where many keys could be played at the same time – was stupendously expensive. The same electronic circuitry had to be duplicated many times, sometimes for each key. These instruments were mostly of academic interest – I can’t think of any band that used one on stage (but I could be wrong). Divide-down synths like the Arp Solina and Omni were widely used in live bands and weren’t that difficult to trek around for the period. Certainly lighter than the contemporary transistor organs of the era True Analog polysynths were also used extensively live going back to the late 70s with the arrival of the Prophet 5, Roland Jupiter 4 - and by the early 80s (before the DX7 arrived) there were a tons of artists performing with them live.

coldtea 2y ago

>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 synthesis makes no logical sense"? He writes like FM went away. While DX7 itself was eventually retired (and synths like M1 became popular), Yamaha made several further flagship FM synths, and FM synthesis is still widely popular, used in both plugin form (including several DX7 emulations plus lots of fresh FM implementations), modern dedicated FM synths (e.g. Korg Opsix, Elektron Digitone), and of course as FM sound engines in multi-engine synths (FM-X in Yamaha's keyboards like Montage and MODX, Hydrasynth's FM mode, Nord's FM engine, to name but a few). There are even boutique options (ReFace DX, Volca FM). And of course even vintage DX7s go for a quite high price in second+ hand market...

MBCook 2y ago
From what follows after that I think they were referring to the configuration interface being effectively unusable by most people when they said “makes no logical sense“.
- musicale 2y ago
  The tiny LCD UI was a typical cost-cutting measure for synths from that era and isn't unique to FM or even digital synths. I bought a vintage Yamaha TX81z (they're cheap on ebay) and while it features a tiny LCD UI it also comes with a very logical diagram printed on the top of the case. Yamaha's user manuals are also well written. I've enjoyed making dozens of FM synth patches on all sorts of instruments (perhaps because I am attracted to the FM sounds that you still hear all the time in pop and dance music.) At the end of the day most synthesis methods boil down to two knobs: signal amplitude and spectral complexity, and FM isn't that different, especially with a single oscillator/operator pair.
alfiedotwtf 2y ago
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 designer or you buy patches online, you’re better off getting a Digitone for “simpler” FM or just stick to the MODX’s excellent sampled acoustic instruments. Yeah… the MODX/Montage UI is really bad and feels like something out of 2004.

miunau 2y ago

My DX7 take is this: I don't think time has made any other synth less desirable to own than the original DX7's. - Keyboard velocity maxes out at 100 and the action sucks. - Membrane buttons. - Weighs way too much. - Dinky 2-line screen for controlling dozens and dozens of parameters using one slider. You can run the entire thing completely correct off of a chip the size of a fingernail these days, so there's no practical reason to own one. No wonder the prices have dunked lately. Even the FB-01 is a much better proposition, at least it only takes up half a rack.

alfiedotwtf 2y ago
Nah, I’d recommend the Yamaha DX Reface for something that’s a direct DX linage but compact (or you can use a MIDI controller if you want more than 37 keys).
- alterom 2y ago
  Seconding the Reface DX recommendation. It makes FM programming enjoyable. I never figured Dexed or FM-7 out, even though the soft synths and the screen real estate would seem like an ideal match for FM synthesis. But no, I feel like I only started to grok FM with Reface DX.
- wazoox 2y ago
  Yep, I really like my little reface DX, it's reasonably easy to tweak sounds, and with the help of the free reface DX editor panel ( https://refacedx.martintarenskeen.nl/ https://refacedx.martintarenskeen.nl/ ) you can load any patch for 4-op FM synth of yore (DX 9, DX 11, TX81Z) into it.
steve1977 2y ago
The key action sucks? The FS keybed is considered one of the best synth actions by many, it’s interesting you say that. It was used in the Korg M1 and other Korg synths for example and lives on as the lead-free FSX in the Montage flagship synths of Yamaha.

ed-209 2y ago

As a former owner and synth head, I feel the DX7 was good for poorly simulating a broad range of superior instruments. Also it wasn't merely difficult to program - it made sound design a necessarily separate activity from playing due to the notorious programming UX. Revolutionary and a nifty museum piece. Relating to it's influence on 80s music, this oft repeated claim is laughable. Tom Oberheim and the late Dave Smith had demonstrably greater influence with the OB-X* and Prophet lines reigning supreme and offering lasting sonic contributions.

fuhsnn 2y ago
>poorly simulating a broad range of superior instruments Nothing touches FM's velocity responsiveness until physical modeling, it sounds lame when you get used to it, but the same thing is true to the romplers that replaced it. >Relating to it's influence on 80s music 80s is quite broad, claims like this basically just showed which artists the writer prefer. Personally, it's PPG and Moog.
- relaxing 2y ago
  > Nothing touches FM's velocity responsiveness ??? You can make any synthesis velocity responsive. Oberheim had it, there were Rolands in the DCO era. Vangelis mastered it on the CS80. The DX7 simply made velocity sensitive keys widely available, and critically Yamaha baked velocity sensitivity into every patch.
  - pantulis 2y ago
    Not forgetting aftertouch.
  - vvillena 2y ago
    The FM trick is that the available parameters that can be modulated through velocity result in a wider range of tonal variation, where traditional subtractive synthesis is usually simpler, and velocity changes affect parameters that don't result in wide changes to the tone, such as volume or filter envelopes. With FM, modifying an operator envelope can result in a completely different sound. A well-crafted patch that takes advantage of this, played by a good keyboardist, will feel alive, in a way traditional synths of that time couldn't achieve.

mastazi 2y ago

Anthony Marinelli (film composer and synth programmer for many artists including Micheal Jackson) recently made a series of documentaries about FM Synthesis and its inventor John Chowning, the DX7 is mentioned multiple times alongside the Synclavier which used the same synthesis method but predated the DX7. About Chowning and the DX7 https://youtu.be/Mu8lHX-xuSg https://youtu.be/Mu8lHX-xuSg Other videos about FM and contemporary applications https://youtu.be/Pl7BY4C9Cg4 https://youtu.be/Pl7BY4C9Cg4 and https://youtu.be/Uoiqy5mkUKE https://youtu.be/Uoiqy5mkUKE Aboout Synclavier https://youtu.be/G5T7NBLSY0c https://youtu.be/G5T7NBLSY0c

brudgers 2y ago
In the future you can get a synclavier on your iphone. We live in that future. https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-go/ https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-go/
- alterom 2y ago
  Oh, and apparently there's a new hardware desktop Synclavier! Synclavier Regen weighs in at $2.5K, but then again, it was never a budget brand in the first place: https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-regen/ https://www.synclavier.com/synclavier-regen/
throw_m239339 2y ago
The synclavier went even further with resynthesis capabilities: You would feed the synth some audio and the synclavier would attempt at reproducing the audio snippet through FM synthesis.

brudgers 2y ago

If you want a professional Yamaha FM synth from the 1980’s, the V50 is a bargain. It was the last of the DX’s and is essentially two DX9’s with a sequencer and a drum machine. For clarity, the later 4 op FM chips, have multiple wave forms and provide a sonic space as powerful as the earlier sine wave only six Op chips…they are not identical but equivalent.

speed_spread 2y ago
Also of note, the SY77 which bridges the best of Yamaha FM with AWM2 rompler tech.
- pea 2y ago
  absolutely. i have an sy99 and they often go for less or equal to a dx7, and they are much more of a powerhouse. can't recommend enough

uuddlrlrbaba 2y ago

The DX7 is an incredible synth, but one of the joys of playing is hearing the sound change to your adjustments and the DX7 just doesn't do that. But it is great fun to feed through filter, delay and reverb pedals. Thats kind of the best of both worlds

fsckboy 2y ago
just for the audience, the DX7 used a newly invented type of synthesis (FM but that doesn't tell you or anybody else anything) and it was alone among synths at the time to produce metallic, brass, bell, etc. sounds. Performers flocked to it to get away from the same old analog synth sound everybody else had. FM synths are programmable, but not easily, and the menu diving was not practical while playing. Analog (subtractive) synths are very much back in popularity right now and they offer lots of knobs to give bwahgrrrssshhhhwow type transformations
alterom 2y ago
>The DX7 is an incredible synth, but one of the joys of playing is hearing the sound change to your adjustments and the DX7 just doesn't do that ...but Yamaha Reface DX does. I've been changing the sound while playing the synth to go from the ePiano preset to an aggressive synth lead as a demo of that interface. It's pure joy, and an underrated piece of hardware.
- surfingdino 2y ago
  It's even better with the Dtronics expander, but still too much faff for me.
  - alterom 2y ago
    Thanks, I didn't know about it - and it seems like an awesome addition to the machine!

fsckboy 2y ago

>They don't make them like that any more: the Yamaha DX7 keyboard Greg Kihn Band Breakup Song with the unforgettable lyric, "they don't write 'em like that any more" did not use the DX7 at least because it was not available in 1981, but the keyboardist Gary Philips was known to use Minimoog, Prophet-5, Wurlitzer, Rhodes and Yamaha pianos with the band. In 1983 Gary Philips was an early adopter of the DX7. They don't make them like that any more either.

Mountain_Skies 2y ago
I didn't know how to play the keyboard but the DX7 was seen in so many music videos in the 80s that it became an object of desire for me. If I were going to learn how to play the keyboard, it was going to be on the DX7! To me it was the Lamborghini of keyboards. I had zero understanding of synths or even basic music theory. I just knew all the cool bands had a DX7 and I wanted to be like the cool guys on saw on MTV. We eventually got some cheap consumer keyboard from K-Mart which was completely forgotten by New Years Day. As an aside, I find it's a bit weird how overlooked the Greg Kihn Band is in current 80s culture. It might not have been as big as Michael Jackson or Chicago but they were quite well known. Weird Al even did a parody of one of their songs but their cultural impact seems to have not survived as well as other acts of that era, which is a pity.
- __mharrison__ 2y ago
  As an aside to an aside, Greg Kihn became a DJ for a classic rock station in the Bay area that I used to listen to. Even then I only know one of his songs.
- larrywright 2y ago
  Same, but in my case it was the Roland D-50.

esafak 2y ago

> An interesting development was the discovery that, if the operators started with square, rather than sine, waveforms, it didn’t take as many operators to create interesting sounds. Is this true? How and why? I imagine the square basis also contributed to the brilliance, not being band-limited.

rjh29 2y ago
It has the most harmonics.
- alterom 2y ago
  Just to add: harmonics are sine waves, in essence. A pure sine wave has only one harmonic. You need to add up a bunch of sine waves of different frequencies (multiples of the fundamental) to get something as, in a way, unnatural as a square (or sawtooth) wave. That's why they're great building blocks for subtractive synthesis too. Pass them through a resonant filter, and you get something interesting. They are also very easy to make digitally (a square wave is just on-off-on-off..).

yowlingcat 2y ago

DX7 will always have a special place in my heart being the spiritual predecessor to my favorite soft synth, FM8. If you want a modern FM synthesis experience, FM8 has been that for over a decade. Low CPU usage, incredibly versatile, really easy to work with in the mix (FM synthesis tends to be easy to shape and layer spectrally).

sixthDot 2y ago
> being the spiritual predecessor There was the FM7 before. It already fixed the UX/UI problems of the hardware version.

IAmGraydon 2y ago

Yamaha basically still makes the DX7 in a modernized form in the Reface DX. It just has 4 operators instead of 6, but it can create various waveshapes whereas the DX7 can only create sine waves so it requires more operators to achieve the more complex shapes. Also, Korg makes the Volca FM, which is actually a clone of the original Yamaha engine and you can actually directly load DX7 patches into it. >There remains a niche interest in generating instrumental sounds using mathematical modelling, but almost all digital music production these days is based on sampling. Yeah...that's just completely untrue.

peapicker 2y ago
Korg Opsix can also load Dx7 patches, and has all six ops. And many waveforms beyond sine. And other weird shit you can use instead of an oscillator in an operator spot, like a comb filter and other things. Tons of fun.

fooker 2y ago

If you have a techie friend from India ask if they have an old TVS Gold keyboard. Pretty nice model m clones.

chubs 2y ago

I recently was obsessed with FM for a while! If you want a bit of fun, here’s a synth I made, the codes fairly simple if you want to poke around, you can fool with parameters easily. Doesn’t work great on mobile though. https://chrishulbert.github.io/you-synth/ https://chrishulbert.github.io/you-synth/

atorodius 2y ago

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?

markusw 2y ago
You’re missing MIDI controllers, of which there are plenty. :) Synth versions without the keys are often called “desktop versions”.
bowsamic 2y ago
There are a huge number of MIDI controllers and keyboardless synths
alterom 2y ago
> 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 good keyboard controllers that you can plug into a Eurorack if you're a Eurorack player. Many synths haverack mount versions. You're missing nothing in that sense. Your question isn't about the industry. It's about musicians. You're asking why musicians other than you still want complete instruments. The answer is simple. People who play other instruments need other instruments. Of which the keyboard can be an integral part. You might as well ask why people still buy hardware synths when perfectly good software synthesizers exist. The answer is the same: they play differently (that applies both to the machines and the performers). Here are some reasons why synths come with built-in keyboards. The most important reason: — Keyboards are mechanical instruments with particular response curves. The patches the synth comes with can be optimized to play and sound good on the keyboard the synth ships with. This guarantees quality out-of-the-box, consistency, and makes it so that your presets would feel the same when your play them on another device. Yamaha DX-7 played with an 88 weighted keys keyboard is a different, and a worse instrument. As is a Clavinova played when DX-7 as a controller. — Ergonomics matter. Each synthesizer is unique in the way it builds its sounds, which is why many come with dedicated controls (buttons, knobs, sliders, screens). Where these controls are in relation to the keyboard matters. I can play drum pads while playing the keys on my Akai Mini Play 3, for example, but not on my larger Yamahas. I can tweak the patches on the Reface DX live, but not if I used the MX-88 as a controller. — Physical layout matters. Performers to look the audience, not the knobs; the audience wants the performer to look at them. Memorizing the layout by touch isn't possible when the layout isn't fixed. For gigging musicians, the following are important: — portability — physical robustness — time to set up on stage — space on stage — physical setup — ability to move while performing Having more cables to connect isn't something gigging musicians want when you have 5 minutes to set up for a 30 minute set at a dimly lit bar. And then there's the setup. You put a stand on a stage, there goes your controller. Where does the synth go? Oh, you need another table or stand for the synth. Now to tweak a patch. Your controller may not have all the knobs your synth engine uses. The sound module has them, but it's on the table over there, while you're playing facing the audience over here. Bummer. Finally, I have straps for some of my keyboards, so I can move around the stage during the show. 1/4" cables are long, and made to withstand abuse; USB plugs agent, and MIDI cables, while better, aren't made for that either. There are also marketing reasons: — A synth that people can try in a store is more appealing than one they can't. Rackmount synths don't make for good displays. If people have inconsistent experience trying the instrument, it doesn't bode well for the brand. — When someone plays a Nord keyboard, you know it, because it has a distinctive look. Musicians take note of other musicians' gear. — An instrument that can't make any sound on its own is not an instrument, it's a module. It's a different product. And then we get to psychological reasons: — Performers are deeply attached to their instruments. A sound module without a keyboard isn't an instrument. A controller isn't an instrument. Together, they form a system made up of components; it doesn't feel as an instrument the same way a guitar does. — Looks matter. Performers want to look good on stage. And a generic controller simply doesn't look as good as a complete instrument, with a dedicated interface. — Feels matter. The feedback one gets from touching and playing the instrument affects the performance. And that's before we get into things like: — busking — jamming with other people — playing outdoors (I played my Reface DX in the mountains and at campfires, in the streets and on the road) The TL;DR, though, is that if you want a controller for your Eurorack, you've got it. Saying that's how everyone should make music, though, is quite a reach.

knvlt 2y ago

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 patches: https://www.burnkit2600.com/manuals/fm_theory_and_applications.pdf https://www.burnkit2600.com/manuals/fm_theory_and_applicatio...

Intermernet 2y ago
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.
- musicale 2y ago
  As I noted in another comment, you can start out, and get pretty far, with just a single operator pair, which basically determines the waveform and spectral complexity. For me it has a similar feel (unsurprisingly enough) to analog FM, ring modulation, or oscillator sync.
- knvlt 2y ago
  Yes! Dexed is great and I would recommend trying the samples from the book with it. You need a bit of exploration, to get a grasp whats going on.

azalemeth 2y ago

> "My Kawai stage piano has about forty different instrumental sounds, all produced from samples of real instruments. Apart from the string sounds: I believe it creates those by tormenting cats on Xanax." I don't quite know why but the author is really correct on synth strings. I've got a few friends who are fantastic semi pro strings players and the expressionism of their instruments are phenomenal -- I've sung with them a lot and played orchestrally as well. Synth strings inevitably sound like synth strings. I'm sure there's a realistic sampler somewhere on the planet but I've never come remotely close to discovering one that is any good ...

grp 2y ago
Regarding synth strings, maybe Roland Integra-7 (and stuff like that) can do the trick.
tgv 2y ago
Synth strings sound like the original "string synthesizers" like the Solina String Ensemble (famously present in Jarre's Oxygene, albeit played on somewhat different instrument, and through a phaser). They tend to be scratchy, nasally, thin, etc. Sampled strings cen be really convincing. Listen e.g. to https://vi-control.net/community/threads/phaeton-symphony-by-saint-saens-spitfire-symphonic-orchestra.106905/ https://vi-control.net/community/threads/phaeton-symphony-by...

block_dagger 2y ago

Now it’s the Nord Stage series that is the crown jewel of gigging keyboardists. I sold off my Fender Rhodes and Hohner Clavinet years ago when I bought my first Nord. Nothing can take the place of a real B3/Leslie though!

surfingdino 2y ago

FM synthesis is a bit like Lisp--everybody says it's cool, but getting acceptable results is harder than with another approach. When I need FM, I use Arturia's _DX7 V plugin and only play presets.

_7acn 2y ago

But 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 nothing "goes out of use" and it cannot become obsolete.

JoeyJoJoJr 2y ago
Synthstrom Deluge is also going to have DX7 emulation soon.I can’t wait to have a DX7 in a powerful groove box. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=84EENKfeV8M https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=84EENKfeV8M
consf 2y ago
[dead]
jacobr1 2y ago
Any recommendations for a starter synth? Something polyphonic, and has the ability to mess around to create new sounds (so analogue controls, but it could still be digital behind the scenes). I'd like some presets, but not be limited to them. What is on the market at a reasonable price point (under or around $500) that fits this profile?
- schwartzworld 2y ago
  There's a lot of affordable choices depending on what you want, but everything has tradeoffs. I love my Microfreak, but it only has 4 voices of polyphony, a weird keybed and no onboard effects. That said it makes amazing sounds and has a very discoverable set of controls, and since I play guitar I have external effect pedals at home anyway. If you're not committed to hardware, a nice midi controller and a software synth will let you learn without spending big bucks. And even then the midi controller is optional.
- honkycat 2y ago
  Hydrasynth Explorer Minifreak buying used off of ebay / reverb is fine Or get a Arturia MiniLab 3, it comes with a synth package and can control anything on your computer. Good free synths: - Dexed - Vital - Odin - Pianobook / Decent Sampler

moomin 2y ago

Brian 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.

Supernaut 2y ago
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-for-yamaha-dx-7-1984-blue https://reverb.com/item/21724471-jellinghaus-dx-programmer-f...
- moomin 2y ago
  Thank you for the correction! Managed to get it under the edit window as well so I can acknowledge it.

odiroot 2y ago

Yes they don't make them like that anymore. Most synthesisers nowadays have much better user interface.

TrackerFF 2y ago

Still use mine for bass sounds. Nightmare to program by hand on the fly, but it has its classic sounds.

TheOtherHobbes 2y ago

>These instruments were mostly of academic interest – I can’t think of any band that used one on stage (but I could be wrong). Very 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.

relaxing 2y ago
Came to quibble with the “no bands gigged polysynths” slander as well. They did, but only for about a 5 year window where it was economically feasible. There’s Sequential Prophet 5 all over Talking Heads - Stop Making Sense. Van Halen famously used an Oberheim. Basically any record in the first half of the 80s if it had synths.

somemisopaste 2y ago

One of my favorite videos on the internet involves DX7: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ

chrismorgan 2y ago
That was painful, but I couldn’t quite look away. At 4:00, I was the one with the distressed look. But I can’t deny that the end result was startlingly realistic in general, though obviously still a bit overdone.

dep_b 2y ago

Yamaha keyboards were top notch. I had a SY-85 with the nicest keyboard I've ever used for my purposes. Good feel, velocity sensitive but non weighted, fully polyphonic aftertouch.

JodieBenitez 2y ago

For those of you more interested in the synthesis than the keyboard, the Elektron Digitone is one of the easiest FM synth to use, while still capable of an incredible variety of sounds. For a software recreation of the DX7, see the Dexed plugin.

larsbrinkhoff 2y ago

FM synthesis was developed by John Chowning on the Stanford AI lab PDP-6 and PDP-10.

samuell 2y ago

I learned to play the keyboard on my father's DX11, in the late80s/early 90s, and remember the sounds with warmth. The DX11 doesn't seem to have been at all as well known or iconic though, and have only seen the DX7 being written extensively about. It seems to have been quite closely related to the DX7 though, based on some info I found:https://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/dx11 https://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/dx11

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

squarefoot 2y ago

I lived that era, and don't miss the DX7 at all. Yes, when it came out it was revolutionary and if you wanted to produce very thin sounds, (some) credible organs, really nice electric pianos, punching basses, and metallic sounding instruments that one was the keyboard to use, no doubt, but the drawback was that almost everything else would sound terrible, I mean really awful. Additive synth is great only if done well, and the first DX synthesizer were a lot limited in some fields; if you tried to make a track only using a DX7 it would be a compromise wrapped around other compromises. For starters, operators could generate only sine waves, and every other waveform had to be emulated by frequency modulating an operator by another synced operator; that could be used to make some really interesting effects and sounds, but no way one could produce for example believable strings; they were just terrible. Also it had no filters, that is, no VCF/DCF/whatever, so no way to produce credible sweeps or warm pads that would have been trivial to produce with a 10 years older keyboard. DX7 has been revolutionary for sure, but had its share of limitations, and (plugins aside, of course) rather than spending money on a vintage DX7, I'd get a smaller and much cheaper FM expander to be driven together in unison with a traditional analog sounding one; the 1st one for the aggressive attack, the 2nd one for more warmth. As for additive synth, I deeply regret having sold my Kawai K5000 years ago; that was really a beast. Heck, That applies pretty much to all my old gear, but sometimes one is forced to, only to regret much later.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sho_hn 2y ago

> The use of mathematics to produce sounds resembling real instruments quickly became obsolete once we could just go out and sample the real thing. No. One of the most popular piano VSTs on the market is Pianoteq, which uses physical modelling of the instrument rather than being sample-based. It's often considered one of the most realistic-sounding piano VSTs all the same (they have models of many popular acoustic models, authorized by their builders), and offers a much higher degree of dynamism and reactivity than sample-based ones, and much more flexibility in simulated microphone placement, etc. This approach is still leading-edge in places.

micahscopes 2y ago

I worked on the sound effects and music for the game Wilderplace and used WebDX7 for all of the sound (everything but some sculpted white noise for rain as DX7 doesn't offer pure noise or filters). All the sequencing/synthesis happens real-time in the game. DX7 was crazy fun to work with, like working with clay or something... DX7 patches have this way of layering with each other that feels both clear and warm at the same time. They don't accumulate mud in the same way that sample-based instruments do. They do have this challenge of accumulating digital-sounding cruft, but I think this is part of their gritty, organic beauty. Okay but that said I'd love to experience a stereo GPU-based FM synth with high dynamic range and a fully configurable operator graph.

jfactorial 2y ago

Fun fact: The Taco Bell bell gong sound is an E on the DX7 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBrC_l-VCs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DBrC_l-VCs

catketch 2y ago
sounds like the bell in the opening of the top gun theme
consf 2y ago
[dead]

masto 2y ago

I can appreciate these instruments now, especially in their historical context, legacy in music, and from a technical perspective. But I still carry a 30 year old dislike of "that FM sound", for the dumbest of reasons: I was in college in the 90s. My roommate had a PC with a Soundblaster card, and he played this Star Wars game incessantly. It has a terrible, insipid, repetitive, infuriatingly annoying soundtrack that I grew to despise with every molecule of my being, mostly because I was subjected to it as an eternal everlasting torment, but also because I had an Amiga and my computer was clearly superior in every way especially when it came to sound. Anyway, hearing this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexOZwatuLg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TexOZwatuLg - constantly caused me to associate all FM sounds, even in good music, with this cheap "wah wah wah ee ee wah wah wah" noise, which I've only partly shaken decades after the trauma. Also, when he wasn't playing that one, he was playing this Dune game (https://youtu.be/gOscXf0Fpmk?si=hUZ8g0GZ48CKfKzh&t=7394 https://youtu.be/gOscXf0Fpmk?si=hUZ8g0GZ48CKfKzh&t=7394) with a more varied but equally cheap sound, and on top of that playing the game triggers the most repetitive samples ever devised by man. Reporting, acknowledged, reporting, acknowledged... oh, the torture. Where was I? Ah, that's why I'm not a fan of FM synthesizers.

cesaref 2y ago

There was mention of the sound becoming 'dull' at the higher octaves. This is not a limitation of the DAC as was suggested, but caused by the phase modulation algorithm aliasing badly at the top of the range. Basically the modulation causes higher harmonics to appear in the output, and if these are higher than nyquist (half the sampling rate) they reflect back into the audible range, and produce unpleasant very digital sounding artifacts. So, the DX designers avoid this by adding keyboard scaling for the operators - as you play higher up the keyboard, sounds could reduce the amount of modulation applied, and hence reduce the level of the aliases till they were inaudible. Unfortunately if done too aggressively, this will lead to a noticeable reduction in the harmonic complexity of the tone, which is perceived as a dull tone.

ajxs 2y ago
Great post! I always thought that the keyboard scaling was entirely for musical purposes. Such as emulating the difference in timbre in a plucked instrument as you go up in pitch. One of the main DX7 patents talks about adding an averaging filter in the path of the feedback mechanism. Averaging the current sample with the last one helps prevent the high-frequency aliasing. There's also a 16Khz low-pass filter on the main output. Here's a very in-depth look at the behaviour of feedback FM: https://ristoid.net/modular/fm_variants.html https://ristoid.net/modular/fm_variants.html
- sixthDot 2y ago
  The one at the output cant really fix aliasing. At this point bad things have already folded in the normal spectrum.
  - ajxs 2y ago
    Yes, you're right. I could have made that clearer. I think the filter is just there to remove harsh high frequency artefacts from the final output for the sake of the overall sound.
BlandDuck 2y ago
I know there is a bunch of new DX7 implementations on more modern hardware, i.e., the Raspberry Pi. When implemented on modern hardware, wouldn't it be possible to run the algorithm at a higher CPU processing speed, to reduce the aliasing at the higher notes, and avoid the need for keyboard scaling and thus preserve the timbre of the higher pitched notes?

HerbieNeil 2y ago

All these erudite comments were fun to read. I can't help comparing with guitar enthusiasts who are looking out for really old Fenders and Gibsons to get the authentic old fashioned sounds. To my mind the value of a DX7 is just like that. It has a sound relevant to its time in history. It is what it was and has a soul of its own. Has time and technology produced more sophisticated instruments? Sure, but I don't think that's the point.

cesaref 2y ago

On the subject of the DAC used, and why it was 'only' 12 bit. I believe the instrument actually runs all of the voices through a single DAC, so it is basically 16x oversampled, and the voices are held by a sample and hold circuit for all 16 voices before they are summed to the analog output. If the later DX mark II is anything like the TX81z (which is also said to have a 16 bit DAC) it actually uses a 16 bit dynamic range DAC, but with a 10 bit resolution (a YM3012 for the TX - https://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/1179489/YAMAHA/YM3012.html https://www.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/pdf/1179489/YAMAH...) This is definitely the age of interesting DACs, with all sorts of interesting noise profiles. We're really spoilt these days with the quality from delta/sigma DACs, thinking that this has always been the case!

amelius 2y ago

Does anyone know a great mini (2 octaves or so) keyboard that is portable, fits in a backpack, has a built-in grand piano, touch sensitivity, and supports bluetooth? EDIT: I found this [1], which comes close but does not have bluetooth. [1] https://eu.loogguitars.com/products/loog-piano https://eu.loogguitars.com/products/loog-piano

crispyambulance 2y ago

I hope they DON'T make them like the DX7 anymore. What the article says is true, the DX7 sound dominated pop music for a long time. Many musicians were too uncreative (or perhaps it was too much of a hassle) to change it from the boring, over-used factory pre-sets. I seem to recall it was really, REALLY an unpleasant chore to make interesting sounds-- endless modes and everything set up with a single button.

bashinator 2y ago

DX7 is a great example of how new technologies can ruin a previously-great user experience. Going from cables and knobs and an "everything is visible at once" UX on analogs to a small LCD panel with data entry buttons was a huge regression.

lamby 2y ago

Now, how about drums; an instrument everybody loves?