[HN Gopher] Yamaha's DX7 synthesiser changed modern music
___________________________________________________________________
Yamaha's DX7 synthesiser changed modern music
Author : aluket
Score : 75 points
Date : 2020-12-31 13:05 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| malthaus wrote:
| If anyone is interested in playing around with FM (or PM), have a
| look at the Elektron Digitone.
|
| It's "opinionated"; something like Ruby on Rails for FM with some
| guardrails to keep you in the sweet spot of sounds mostly. FM can
| become quite metallic / noisy quickly otherwise.
|
| Additionally you get an interesting sequencer and audio over usb
| in a custom format and it doesn't take up too much space. You can
| build small tracks completely on its own with it.
|
| There are also really good DX7 software emulations on the market
| but i suggest something more beginner friendly; even back in the
| 80s the DX7 was a pain to program.
|
| And theres a nice podcast episode about its ubiquity:
| https://switchedonpop.com/episodes/the-cyndi-lauper-conspira...
| fxj wrote:
| The DX7 was the first of this kind of digital musical
| instruments. Every keyboarder at that time had to have one. They
| were pretty expensive, so Yamaha came out with some cheaper
| models with 4 oscillators instead of 6. The sound was also very
| good and the E-Rhodes is still a classic. But soon after that
| Roland came out with the D50 and that changed everything again,
| because now you could mix samples and digital oscillators.
| Yamahas answer to that was the SY77. A monster synth that nobody
| could program any more.
| rcarmo wrote:
| I've always wanted a DX7, and even though I already have Dexed
| and other emulations, I got myself a Reface DX - which is a
| little marvel on its own, and much handier to have around:
| https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2020/08/08/1430
| musicale wrote:
| I am a huge fan of FM synthesis popularized by the DX7, but the
| DX7 is only one of many highly influential synthesizers, and FM
| is only one of many influential synthesis approaches including
| modular, subtractive, additive, sampling, wavetable, hybrid,
| phase distortion and various forms of wave shaping, physical
| modeling, and others.
|
| I would rank many other developments such as modular synthesis
| (e.g. Moog - think Switched on Bach etc. to modern Eurorack),
| subtractive analog (e.g. Sequential, Roland, Oberheim, etc.),
| hybrid and digital synths (e.g. Roland D-50, Korg M1), cheap
| Casio synths (from the VL-Tone to phase distortion), samplers
| (e.g. Fairlight, Emulator, etc.), analog (TR-808) and digital
| (Akai MPC) drum machines, not to mention monster systems like the
| Synclavier, supersaw synths like the JP-8000 and Access Virus
| (basically the sound of trance) as well as the rise of virtual
| analog synths, software instruments/plugins, and DAWs to be
| similarly groundbreaking and influential. In many cases these
| instruments were keys to the development of genres of popular and
| electronic music (e.g. hip hop, techno, trance, modern EDM,
| etc..)
|
| For 1980s popular music (and radio recognizability for
| instruments of that era) the DX7 should probably share the
| spotlight with the Sequential Prophet 5, Roland D-50 and probably
| others.
| ratww wrote:
| IMO the DX7 sound was kind of a fad and a dead-end in terms of
| evolution and influence. Both the sound and the music it
| contributed to are relegated to nostalgia those days.
|
| Its popularity in the synth world was quickly eclipsed by
| Roland-303s and Korg M1s after some mere 5 or 6 years of
| production. People were very keen to move to anything else and
| it sorta gave FM a bad rap for a while...
|
| Also, Synths like Prophet and Oberheim were already dominating
| pop when the DX7 popped up, and they paved the way for the DX7.
| That's why I don't think the DX7 "changed music", like the
| article says. However, unlike the DX7, bands didn't stop using
| those synths when the "next thing" else came (even though they
| lost some market popularity), and they're still sought after
| today. People still love that Bernie Worrell funky-sync sound.
|
| And Moog and ARP were already popular it in the preceding
| decades and were back on hits in the 90s, with Dr. Dre using a
| Moog in N.W.A., in his solo and in Snoopy Dogg's albums. Trent
| Reznor used a MiniMoog very prominently in Closer, but treated
| DX7s as disposable: they were just live MIDI controllers that
| were meant to be destroyed at the end of every concert.
|
| Maybe there will be a DX7 revival but I'm not really holding my
| breath. Vaporwave was sort of, but in an ironic way, and using
| samples instead of the synth itself.
| noizejoy wrote:
| > Maybe there will be a DX7 revival but I'm not really
| holding my breath.
|
| That reminds me of one of the very unique controllers for the
| DX7 - the breath control apparatus, that ended up
| immortalized as Midi Control Change 2.
|
| It was intended to make horn sounds more realistic and
| organic. It never ended up being widely used. I still have
| one for my DX7, but also never got to like it.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Korg's new OpSix is a very successful reinvention of six-op
| FM and a very nice-sounding synth. It's really quite
| impressive and also much easier to program.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6X4QSP0NpY
|
| The real issue is that the synth universe has contracted
| around a relatively small number of "classic" synth sounds.
| You have the Moog bass, the supersaw pad, various dreamy
| pads, various EDM plucks. the TB303 squelch, Oberheim brass,
| various dubstep pseudo-vocal woobs and buzzes, various
| clockwork-like sequences, and so on. There are maybe a few
| hundred of these sounds, and to music consumers they all
| sound like "synth."
|
| Even with vintage analog, the space of potential sounds is
| much, much bigger. But the number of people who are real
| sound design virtuosos - as opposed to patching up some kind
| of raspy randomness on Eurorack - is _tiny._
|
| It's so much easier to treat sounds as presets or as
| imitations of the "classics" - which are often imitations of
| imitations - instead of approaching sound design as an
| imaginative exercise in mood and association.
|
| So that's why some analog synths have legendary status. The
| promise is a legendary sound _without having to do much
| work._ And that 's a very boring reason to play with
| synthesizers.
| type0 wrote:
| Korg recently released fm synth (Opsix) looks cool but I wonder
| where innovation in synthesis is nowdays? Interesting products
| like ASM hydrasynth have fantastic sound design possibilities but
| it still could be somewhat done in a DAW. The semimodular stuff
| can offer things for experimentation, I wish there were more
| digital semimodular affordable synths like Microfreak that would
| offer versatility and invite to experimentation.
| klodolph wrote:
| New synthesis techniques don't really pop out of the woodwork.
| As far as I can tell, what we're seeing is old techniques
| repackaged with new user interfaces. There's a _ton_ of room
| for innovation in user interfaces.
| arvinsim wrote:
| Speaking of Microfreak, I wish there are more portable but
| powerful synthesizers that run on batteries.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I love the DX7.
|
| It's by no means a perfect synth, not anywhere close - but for
| certain sounds and styles, it really excels. Pain in the @ss to
| program at first (and later for that matter...), but for me, the
| bass and electric piano sounds are just wonderful, at least if
| you're doing retro stuff, or 80's cover tunes.
| spinchange wrote:
| Everyone arguing that the DX7 is NOT the most important
| commercial synth (for whatever reason) are ignoring one metric
| that every other synth maker, alive or dead, envies about it: its
| sales.
| [deleted]
| IndySun wrote:
| What's the HN soft rule about linking to soft paywalls?
|
| https://archive.is/Gap8m
|
| I lived through the DX7s arrival in to the recording studio. It
| sounded harsh, thin, very un-musical, vastly overpriced, and was
| dated then, and it still does. Never sounded 'cool'. Recent
| software recreations flatter its legacy, which is a good thing.
| memdiag wrote:
| This reminded me of "How to vintage your synth", which features
| DX7:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL_N3A5gVhQ
| MrGando wrote:
| The DX7 is indeed super important. The E. Piano preset is in like
| all the 80s cheesy ballads ever... but not only those. It was
| also used in Jazz (fusion) quite a bit. Hell, Chick Corea was a
| fan of the Synth (listen Electric City), also George Duke.
|
| Even the big brands these days have sampled the DX E. piano,
| because if you're a live performer it's quite likely that you'll
| need it if you're playing anything from the 80s in your
| repertoire (https://www.nordkeyboards.com/sound-libraries/nord-
| sample-li...).
|
| The DX 7 E.Piano is not a great "E.Piano Sound", but it has a
| life of its own... :)
|
| Source: Been playing Piano for 27 years and started on Synths ~22
| yrs ago... first synth was an FM Korg X5D :)
| davtbaum wrote:
| _The DX7 can lay claim to being one of the most important
| advances in the history of modern popular music. Perhaps not
| since Leo Fender attached a pick-up to a six-string in 1949_
|
| Statements like this are, exaggerated, to say the least. While
| the DX7 is undoubtedly prolific in 80s pop, it was just a synth
| that was successful for its price point (and timing!) as called
| out in the article. Case in point that today, nearly all the
| major manufacturers are building re-issues and the most coveted
| are those the analog counterparts of the Dx-7 (the sequential
| prophets, Oberheims, ARP...). FM has no way succeeded the typical
| subtractive synthesis of the analog machines.
|
| _source: I write 80s influenced music and collect synths_
| ksk wrote:
| Are there any reasons to use a full synth these days? I'm not a
| musician but I've been dabbling in digital audio on and off and
| I really like the sound quality of sampled instruments
| especially for Piano. I haven't used the original DX7 only a
| VST (Dexed) for it.
| noizejoy wrote:
| I much prefer using the Dexed VST software based synth for
| recording over a DX7. The sound is hard to tell apart, the DX
| 7 doesn't have a good surface for programming, has a crappy
| midi implementation, and doesn't integrate into a DAW as well
| as a plugin. Since the DX7 is digital anyway, you also don't
| loose much real or perceived "analog warmth".
|
| Source: I have both.
| raphlinus wrote:
| Thanks, appreciate the kind words!
|
| Disclosure/shameless self-brag: I wrote the original
| synthesizer engine that became Dexed, though the team has
| moved it forward in lots of important ways. I did careful
| reverse engineering of an actual DX7 II, including
| disassembling its ROM, so the fact that it matches well
| should not be surprising.
| ssalazar wrote:
| Amazing work! Would love to read/learn more if you ever
| have the time/motivation for a blog post about it.
| sounds wrote:
| It's not a science, so objectively it could be argued either
| way.
|
| The "No synth" argument - as you say, a good DAW with the
| right plugins completely covers the space. No one will ever
| need a physical synth again.
|
| I guess we could both imagine a "Yes synth" argument for the
| counter.
| woah wrote:
| Computers still can't handle the style of complex analog FM
| synthesis that people do with "eurorack" style modular
| synthesizers. You can approach it with software like
| https://vcvrack.com, but it will start to stutter out
| quickly even on a fast computer, and introduces artifacts
| if you are modulating with high frequencies.
| klodolph wrote:
| Well, VCV rack is far from the definitive solution here.
| There are commercial alternatives like Reaktor which are
| much more powerful. Reaktor is powerful to a fault, you
| might say, but if you are running into limitations with
| VCV Rack then something like Reaktor is the obvious
| upgrade.
|
| As an analogy, if VCV Rack is like a Unix shell that lets
| you pipe programs, then Reaktor is like a C compiler.
| scns wrote:
| Or Bitwig where you can integrate your physical Eurorack
| modules or other voltage controlled analog synths and
| build any synth or effects unit you want from small
| building blocks with Grid.
|
| Bitwig Sound Design And Hardware Integration Workshop:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=125sfyebk1o
|
| FM v PM: TRUE Frequency Modulation (linear) in Bitwig's
| Grid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIwwgM3m3uc
|
| Disclaimer: not affiliated
|
| (edit: add disclaimer)
| carry_bit wrote:
| The main advantage of a hardware synth is the user
| experience. Its controls are tailored specifically for that
| synth.
|
| If it has a built-in keyboard, it also has the benefit of
| being a self-contained unit, and can feel (psychologically)
| more like a real instrument.
| ratww wrote:
| Physical synths are great because they have knobs and are
| great for real time tweaking along with playing. Also, some
| people enjoy some of the "special sauce" that analog synths
| have due to their imperfect nature.
|
| ...with that said: the DX7 is digital, and its UI/UX sucks.
| It has only buttons and menus, so no realtime control, and
| it's a bit unpleasant to use IMO. There used to be an
| external programmer unit with knobs but I never saw one in
| the flesh.
|
| So, your VST is light-years better in terms of both UI/UX and
| sound due to better anti-aliasing filters and probably new
| features. Another good option if you enjoy the DX7 sound is
| the Native Instruments FM7.
|
| If you want to experiment with a real analog synth may I
| suggest something in the subtractive synthesis family?
| Something Moog-ish is a great start! Behringer makes some
| very affordable ones!
| tgv wrote:
| The DX series is having a bit of a revival: Yamaha's Reface,
| Korg's Volca, and a few others. The DX are also in demand
| again: not so long ago I bought a TX7 for around $75, now they
| sell for $350. The DX100/DX27 is also desired by quite a few,
| it seems.
|
| There are multiple reasons, I think: - analog got popular again
| because bands started using it again when the prices dropped
| (due to digital tech, of course) - classic synths are
| vulnerable, making them decent investement objects, thus
| pushing the price, and making them more coveted than they
| deserve - that left only cheap digital synths for players bands
| without money, much like the 303, 808 and 909 back in the day
| (speaking of synths that changed music...) - which makes them
| desirable for the trend-followers, like analog 10 years ago. -
| the DX series fits better in modern music than something like
| the early Roland romplers with their super-cheesy sound.
| spinchange wrote:
| Apple's Logic Pro User Guide page on FM Synthesis:
|
| "The DX7, sold from 1983 to 1986, remains the most commercially
| successful professional-level hardware synthesizer ever made."
|
| https://support.apple.com/guide/logicpro/frequency-modulatio...
|
| How do you get good bells and brass or as punchy bass sounds
| from subtractive-only synthesis?
|
| "According to Dave Smith, founder of the synthesizer company
| Sequential, 'The synthesizer market was tiny in the late 70s.
| No one was selling 50,000 of these things. It wasn't until the
| Yamaha DX7 came out that a company shipped 100,000-plus
| synths'"
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_DX7#cite_note-:7-16
| neonate wrote:
| https://archive.is/Gap8m
| IndySun wrote:
| Thank you.
| scns wrote:
| I was astounded when i realized that the keyboard player of my
| favourite Psychedelic Rock band plays a DX7.
|
| You can check them out here:
| https://smokemaster.bandcamp.com/album/smokemaster
|
| Somehow affiliated, since the bassplayer and main songwriter is a
| friend of mine.
|
| They might have some blue (1st press) and orange (2nd press)
| vinyls left to sell. If you want to get one and don't want to
| feed the scalpers on discogs, send me a mail.
|
| (edit: added last paragraph)
| httpsterio wrote:
| FM (frequency modulating) synthesis in itself was rather
| groundbreaking. Typically when we're talking about creating
| sounds, we mainly had additive and subtractive synthesis where
| stacking oscillators were used to shape sounds. FM uses
| oscillators to manipulate other oscillator's waveforms, which
| opened up a whole lot of new possibilities.
|
| The DX7 mainly was an affordable all-rounder that got loaded with
| a ton of already-good presets and a way of managing presets.
| Yamaha had already released the GS-1 three years prior, but
| obviously it didn't remain in the books of history quite the
| same.
|
| The Sega Genesis soundchip, YM2612 is also a great showcase on
| how different FM synthesis can sound compared to comparable
| competing consoles.
|
| If anyone is interested, there's a great open source soft synth
| called Dexed, which is compatible with DX7 soundbanks (and comes
| bundled with a lot of em). A free, fun way of getting a glimpse
| into FM synthesis and music production techniques of yore.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| Great comment. This really gets to the core of why the DX7 and
| Yamaha's FM synthesis patent was important.
|
| At the time the DX7 came out, sample-based synths were still
| too expensive for the average musician. Affordable analog
| synths had less polyphony and mediocre piano sounds, plus they
| were heavy! The DX7 was cheap and light and did an alright
| piano sound, which is just what musicians wanted.
|
| But having a cheap and light alternative to sample-based
| synthesis wasn't just useful to musicians. Cut-down versions of
| the chips also went into Sega consoles, Neo Geo arcade games,
| AdLib sound cards for PC, and even the early Sound Blasters.
|
| I think Yamaha's FM synthesis had a huge impact on the sorts of
| music a whole generation of gamers grew up with, as well as
| being ubiquitous in pop music through much of the 80s. This is
| what makes the DX7 important, in my opinion. It's more
| significant as part of the story of consumer electronics
| becoming affordable than just as a pop music phenomenon.
| ninjin wrote:
| Indeed, the Genesis (aka Mega Drive) brought a sound very
| different from what was around at the time. As an example, here
| is the rendition of the Battletoads soundtrack for the NES [1]
| which you can compare to the Genesis version [2]. Both by
| legend David Wise [3] of later Donkey Kong Country fame.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCFqF-IeeAk
|
| [2]: https://archive.org/details/md_music_battletoads/
|
| [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Wise_(composer)
| scns wrote:
| OT since not FM, but my favourite OST is from Battletoads in
| Battlemaniacs for SNES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RGsa
| KoP66o&list=PLA90CC2EE7...
| ratww wrote:
| For FM sounds I really enjoy the Neo Geo soundtracks of the
| 90s: Fatal Fury, The King of Fighters, Samurai Shodown.
|
| They were a combination of FM and early sample chips, but all
| super tasteful (as far as 90s game soundtracks go!) and
| exploiting the maximum of the chips.
| moogly wrote:
| It would be a crime to have an article about the DX7 and not
| mention one of the most famous DX7-slingers: Jens Johansson
|
| https://youtu.be/Ry_AP13ylVk?t=1147
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocpi_saZQak&t=1390
|
| https://youtu.be/6CJHt37ya88?t=33
|
| Also a fellow geek. Happy to see his old page still up and
| running: http://www.panix.com/~jens/sect-index-brief.par
| jdontillman wrote:
| Interesting. I agree that the article is an exaggeration.
|
| It could be argued that the DX7 had a significant negative
| musical contribution. Oodles of sounds at the expense of musical
| expression. The musician became alienated from the process of
| making the sound. The keyboard player's job moved from playing
| the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts
| that aren't guitars.
|
| And the DX7 was way too difficult to program. Sort of like trying
| to solve a Rubik's Cube; you can be one twist away and not know
| it. And since whole point of synthesis was for the musician to
| explore and tweak their sound, the DX7 was sort of an anti-synth.
|
| That said...
|
| Maybe it was an accidental choice of words in the article, but I
| would also say that the DX7 was, indeed, one of the most
| important advances in terms of musical engineering.
|
| Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital
| audio filters, which require millions of
| multiplication/accumulation operations a second. The
| microprocessors of the day were not up to the task. TRW offered a
| 16x16 bit multiplier chip, but it cost around $300 for the chip
| alone (!!!) and required significant support circuitry.
|
| FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer
| featured it in the 60's. John Chowning refined the concept, moved
| from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the
| digital realm.
|
| Then some smart folks realized that FM synthesis could be
| implemented entirely in add and ROM lookup operations, which is
| downright easy in 1983 technology. Then they refined FM some more
| so it could produce a wide timbral range from the single engine.
|
| That's the impressive part of the DX7.
| malthaus wrote:
| The difference between analog and digital FM/PM is quite
| immense though. It's very hard to get good sounding analog FM
| (e.g. on my modular system) due to the instability of the
| oscillators. It's mostly used for weird sounds or with short
| envelopes to accent the attack phase.
|
| In that sense, DX7 et al where a huge leap as they brought an
| extensive sound range to the table (even though deeply in the
| uncanny valley for some of them)
| SeanLuke wrote:
| > FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer
| featured it in the 60's.
|
| But the critical feature of FM synthesis that made it usable as
| a musical element was _linear_ FM. Early synthesizers (like, I
| presume Buchla 's) sported "FM" but it was _exponential_ due to
| volt /oct.
|
| > John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to
| phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.
|
| ?? Chowning's paper doesn't mention phase modulation at all,
| does it? His equation is for frequency modulation.
|
| https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/course/100/misc/chowning...
|
| I would presume that the relationships between phase and
| frequency modulation were known a half-century before Chowning.
|
| > Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement
| digital audio filters, which require millions of
| multiplication/accumulation operations a second.
|
| This seems high? A second-order digital filter requires what,
| about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample? This would
| seem to be in the same level of complexity as six
| carrier/modulator interactions; you have to do a multiply to do
| a lookup after all. Or is the issue that the multiplies had to
| be 12-16 bit?
|
| > Maybe it was an accidental choice of words in the article,
| but I would also say that the DX7 was, indeed, one of the most
| important advances in terms of musical engineering.
|
| I think it's easy to argue that the DX7 was the most important
| synthesizer in history. People forget that the DX7 caused a
| near-death experience for the industry as a whole as analog
| synth makers were put out of business by the DX7 and its
| progeny. It also heralded the arrival of commercially viable
| FM, and created a revolution not just in synthesizers but in PC
| sound cards, (ugh) ringtones, you name it.
| walto2 wrote:
| > A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4
| stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample?
|
| This is true today using something like the Chamberlin form
| for a state variable filter. I don't think that level of
| optimization had been discovered yet in the DX7 timeframe.
|
| Also, for adequate quality you want to oversample at least
| 2x, preferably at least 4x.
|
| And 16 bits usually won't be enough headroom in a digital
| filter for good audio quality. Too much truncation.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Well, remember the DX7 was 12 bit.
| walto2 wrote:
| Right. My point was, digital filters won't sound good
| with those constraints, so people weren't using them yet.
|
| Not to overshadow the main idea. The DX7 was a heck of a
| milestone.
| jdontillman wrote:
| >> Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement
| digital audio filters, which require millions of
| multiplication/accumulation operations a second.
|
| > This seems high? A second-order digital filter requires
| what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample?
| This would seem to be in the same level of complexity as six
| carrier/modulator interactions; you have to do a multiply to
| do a lookup after all. Or is the issue that the multiplies
| had to be 12-16 bit?
|
| For microprocessors in 1983, multiply instructions, if they
| existed at all, involved a lot of shift and add cycles. That
| took a long time.
|
| A simple filter might need 4 multiplies and accumulates.
| Times 44,000 times a second, for each sample. Times the
| number of voices; 16 in the case of the DX7.
|
| Now you are easily over a million multiplies a second.
|
| And even though the original DX7 is 12 bits, I think you'd
| need those multiplies to be 16x16 bits for accumulated error
| issues.
|
| So the DX7 was an alternative to having to implement digital
| filters in 1983 technology. They could introduce a digital
| synth at a very reasonable price.
| jdontillman wrote:
| >> John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to
| phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.
|
| > ?? Chowning's paper doesn't mention phase modulation at
| all, does it? His equation is for frequency modulation. > >ht
| tps://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/course/100/misc/chowning...
| > > I would presume that the relationships between phase and
| frequency modulation were known a half-century before
| Chowning.
|
| Chowning says his equation is for frequency modulation, but
| the equation is actually phase modulation.
|
| Chowning's equation(1): e = A sin(t + I
| sinbt)
|
| That's phase modulation. Frequency modulation would be:
| e = A sin(( + I sinbt) t)
|
| Very different.
|
| That's okay; it's the first academic paper on the topic, and
| things were still a little wobbly.
|
| _After_ the paper, he and others refined the concept, moved
| from frequency to phase modulation, and built digital
| implementations.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| Ah yes, that's right. The I sin Beta t is I sin(beta t),
| not I sin(Beta) t.
| jdontillman wrote:
| > > FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla
| synthesizer featured it in the 60's.
|
| > But the critical feature of FM synthesis that made it
| usable as a musical element was linear FM. Early synthesizers
| (like, I presume Buchla's) sported "FM" but it was
| exponential due to volt/oct.
|
| No; the first Buchla oscillator, the 158, did indeed have
| linear FM.
|
| And that was intentional. Early Buchla synths didn't have
| much going on in the filter department, so instead he made
| the oscillators extra expressive.
| jdontillman wrote:
| Correction; the senator meant to say the Buchla 258
| oscillator had linear FM.
|
| (Although there were variations!)
|
| The control voltage input goes through the exponential
| converter, and the FM input sets the bias of the
| exponential converter.
| SeanLuke wrote:
| > No; the first Buchla oscillator, the 158, did indeed have
| linear FM.
|
| Could you point to an authoritative source on this? The
| Model 100 owner's manual says this about the 158: "The
| frequency modulation control require an external signal
| input, which determines the rate (speed) of the frequency
| modulation (vibrato)...". The fact that it says "vibrato"
| would imply exponential FM, wouldn't it?
|
| https://archive.org/details/synthmanual-buchla-100-owners-
| ma...
|
| Actually, after watching this video
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qyPIX61rg) I'm less
| convinced that the 158 had linear FM. As he turns the FM
| knob, the pitch changes. This would be expected for
| exponential FM.
| Exmoor wrote:
| I would agree that the DX7's sound is really dated has honestly
| really negatively impacted some of my favorite songs recorded
| in the the 1980's [0][1], but I really cannot think of an
| specific instrument as distinctive and widespread as it. The
| Telecaster and Stratocaster were very popular, but it's very
| tough to pick them out in a recording from other types of
| electric guitars. Hammond Organs are distinct and popular, but
| nowhere near as ubiquitous as the DX7.
|
| [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTTC_fD598A
| [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXRLozwejDk
| jdontillman wrote:
| "Hammond Organs are distinct and popular, but nowhere near as
| ubiquitous as the DX7."
|
| Dude...
|
| There were about 200,000 DX7s manufactured.
|
| There were about 2 million Hammond Organs manufactured.
| ratww wrote:
| And Hammond Organs never went out of style.
|
| ...okay, maybe in the 80s. But in the 90s/2000s they were
| back in full force.
|
| One of the best concerts of my life was The Mars Volta in
| the early 2000s, and Ikey, the keyboard player (RIP) left
| me speechless with his Hammond soloing.
| kristjankalm wrote:
| Could I ask the source for these numbers? I've been trying
| to find some production numbers for popular synths
| (including submodels, e.g. all Minimoog or Prophet 5
| versions combined etc), but haven't really found anything
| properly sourced/cited.
| klodolph wrote:
| I don't think it's that hard to pick out a Strat or Tele in a
| recording, they both have fairly unique sounds and the only
| guitars which sound like them are direct clones. At least at
| low to medium gain levels, but that's where Strats and Teles
| are mostly used.
| ratww wrote:
| Agreed 100%.
|
| Teles are easy to pick out in country tunes, and guitar-
| based country sounds very different when people use
| something else.
|
| Same for Strats in blues-infused pop. I'm not a super fan
| but a lot of young people today would recognise the sound
| of John Mayer's clean Strat tones in pop-blues, for
| instance.
| jgalentine007 wrote:
| I don't agree - if you play guitar a bit, it's pretty easy to
| tell a telecaster from a stratocaster or a les paul, whether
| clean or distorted (in their traditional forms) on most any
| recording.
| brudgers wrote:
| The Rickenbacker 360 comes to mind in the context of
| distinctive guitar sounds.
| ratww wrote:
| I'd add that both the Rickenbacker 360 and the Rickenbacker
| 360/12 are very distinctive, each one in a different way.
| mortenjorck wrote:
| Just as a Fender is always played through an amp, a DX7 would
| never go dry into the mixing console. What we think of as the
| DX7 sound is almost always a combination of the Yamaha chip
| and a smorgasbord of effects units, usually at least reverb
| but likely also chorus, delay, compression, and even
| distortion, not to mention extensive EQ.
| tenebrisalietum wrote:
| The Roland TB-303--definitely unique--for a while there in
| the late 80's and through the 90's seemed like it was
| everywhere in any electronica/techno-based song.
| scoopdewoop wrote:
| I'd say that roland drum machines and bass synths would be up
| there, especially in the past 30 years.
| usrusr wrote:
| I think that there is a big difference in how easy it is to
| capture the, I don't know, "general musical identity" of a
| TB or TR with a much less constrained drum machine or
| bassline synth. FM synths like the DX7 are notoriously
| difficult to control, it's as if they were deliberately
| amplifying the tiniest differences.
|
| If a piece of music can "sound Roland x0x" even if it was
| made on an entirely different process and any arguments
| about possible lack of an actual Roland in the production
| is strictly the realm of nerd nitpicking. Everyone else
| simply enjoys (or doesn't, but not because of lack of synth
| authenticity). But if a musician goes for "that FM sound"
| chances are the result will be very different depending on
| what actual synth is used.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I think the TR-808 is the only one that might qualify.
|
| Although there are loads of synthesizers that were
| extremely influential in the industry and are immediately
| recognizable to hardcore synth fans (M1, D-50, Prophet 5,
| TB-303, Minimoog etc), I doubt there are many that the
| average listener would consider to be "distinctive".
|
| This is what makes the TR-808 special, I think, even though
| there are lots of other drum machines that can make the
| same sounds. It's become a part of the standard lexicon of
| hip-hop, R&B and electronic music. I imagine a fair amount
| of casual pop music fans know that when someone says an 808
| beat is about to drop, they're gonna get that booming bass
| drum and typewriter snare, maybe a cowbell.
|
| I'm not sure the DX7 ever had the same widespread name
| recognition, even back in its heyday. And outside of
| synths, I don't think the average person connects specific
| guitar models to distinct sounds either, even if they know
| the names in the abstract. The 808 might be unique in this.
| Then again, rock music fans might never even have heard of
| it?
| MegaDeKay wrote:
| Have you ever listened to this Twenty Thousand Hertz
| podcast on the 808? It is a good deep dive into its
| history, its distinctive sound, and what made it as
| influential as it was.
|
| https://www.20k.org/episodes/808
| ratww wrote:
| _> I think the TR-808 is the only one that might
| qualify._
|
| Only? No way! :D
|
| The Roland TR-909 is also extremely popular and was
| considered the sound of techno and house even after the
| TR-808 started to fade outside hip-hop. In the mid-90s it
| was one of the first drum machines to start being cloned
| by new manufacturers due to the demand. The bass drum is
| still used as the foundation for a lot of EDM. It never
| went away... while the 808 which is back but was
| considered passe even in hip-hop for a short while.
|
| The TB-303 Bass Synth is also extremely sought after. It
| was _the_ sound of Acid House in the late 80s and was
| also a mainstay in the 90s for a lot of producers, even
| though it 's limited. Today it's kind of a novelty but
| you still hear it in some tracks. More recently Behringer
| made a clone and Roland reissued it.
|
| Both of those two got in the vernacular of EDM fans at
| the time.
|
| Also the TR-606 has some cult status due to being used by
| artists like Autechre, Aphex Twin and Plastikman among
| others, which are sort of "musician's musicians" among
| the electronic music crowd, although it wasn't as famous
| as 303/808/909 among general listeners.
| scns wrote:
| Agree with you on the 909 and especially the 303, the
| synth that birthed the acid genre and is still in use to
| create new music, check out Tin Man Neo Neo Acid. Hard
| disagree on Plastikman being a musicians musician though.
| He was beyond huge in the 90ies, saw a guy with a
| Plastikman tattoo covering his whole back. Richie Hawtin
| went on to become one of the top DJs in the world. One
| year he played on four new years eve parties, travelling
| by private plane.
| tomduncalf wrote:
| Also check TM404, who does very good music in the Tin Man
| kind of style, maybe a bit more "dubby", using classic
| Roland gear (303 etc)
| ratww wrote:
| Ooops, just re-read my message and you're absolutely
| right. My mistake. I fixed it.
|
| Actually even Aphex Twin is pretty famous... the only
| thing not famous is the phrase is the TR-606! hehe
| alisonatwork wrote:
| I think this is where the conversation starts to get a
| bit far away from the original topic, which was about how
| the DX7 changed modern music.
|
| I am also a big fan of electronic music and owned several
| of the x0x synths, but they're only really recognizable
| to people who are already into synths. Of course if you
| play an 808 and 909 next to one another, they don't sound
| the same. But if you play a random piece of music and ask
| a casual listener what drum machine it features, I don't
| think they would be able to tell you. (Unless, perhaps,
| it's an 808!)
|
| Even something that synth nuts know to be as unique and
| genre-defining as a TB-303, to the casual listener it
| isn't distinguishable from an SH-101 or any other analog
| monosynth. People might know what an acid line sounds
| like, but they don't tend to have the same kind of ear
| that musicians do to be able to spot one synth model from
| the other in the final mix.
|
| When I think about a synth so distinctive and widespread
| that it changed modern music, I think about something
| that average people who aren't musicians can identify.
| The DX7 might have been that, since it was the first
| synthesizer that really went mass-market. All the synths
| before that were "niche" instruments, but the DX7 made
| synth music mainstream, so perhaps it was very
| identifiable. But then the floodgates opened, so it might
| only have lasted for a few years.
|
| The 808, though, I think a lot of people still really
| know and understand what kind of "sound" that is. But I
| could be wrong.
| ratww wrote:
| I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was
| the synth that made synth music mainstream.
|
| A lot of pop from before was already using synths.
| Funkytown was a Billboard #1 hit 4 years before the DX7,
| and so was Vangelis, Human League, Eurythmics and Owner
| of a Lonely Heart a year or two after that, not to
| mention lots of Michael Jackson and even the Ghostbuster
| theme... and that's just the Billboard #1 hits. Even Van
| Halen released "Jump" a year before the DX7, and England
| was already having synth bands since the late 80s. People
| were more than used to synthesizers by the time the DX7
| hit.
|
| And about the 909/303, back in the 80s/90s a lot of EDM
| tracks had 909 in the title, including a Daft Punk track.
| Same for some 303 tracks (but Acid was way more obscure).
| House and Techno people definitely heard about those. In
| fact, they were probably more popular than the DX7.
|
| Sure none of those comes close to the 808 today, but
| that's because the 808 itself had a resurgence in the
| mid-2000s, and hip hop only got bigger since them.
| type0 wrote:
| > I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7
| was the synth that made synth music mainstream.
|
| For a polyphonic synth though it was a game-changer, it
| did make it affordable, but so did sh-101 and countless
| other synths but those weren't polyphonic. Roland Juno
| could be said, it wasn't revolutionary but more
| evolutionary in electronic music making. Here's a good
| article on DCO vs VCO https://blog.thea.codes/the-design-
| of-the-juno-dco/ and recent discussion here:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25598656
| ratww wrote:
| I don't disagree about its technical merits as a synth,
| as an instrument, or what it did to music makers. I was
| merely disputing the claim that it made synth music
| mainstream.
| alisonatwork wrote:
| You are correct that synth music as a genre existed
| before the DX7, and that synths were used in popular
| songs even going back into the 70s. But what this article
| is discussing, and what most people discuss when they
| talk about the DX7, is how its sales dwarfed that of any
| synth that came before it. It didn't just become a piece
| of equipment used by major studios in countless hits
| across many different genres, it also became an
| affordable and useful instrument for working musicians
| across the board.
|
| Right up the top of this thread the first commenter
| explained it well: "The keyboard player's job moved from
| playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the
| accompaniment parts that aren't guitars."
|
| What I don't know is if the DX7 itself was particularly
| recognized as a DX7 by most of the people listening to
| music that was made with it. My guess is that most casual
| listeners still just considered it "the thing that the
| keyboard player is playing". This is why I am not sure
| that it is as uniquely distinctive as the commenter near
| the top of this thread suggested.
|
| Of course trained musicians can identify a DX7 in a
| track, just as they might be able to hear the difference
| between a Stratocaster and a Telecaster. Dedicated fans
| might also hear the difference, if they're interested
| enough to pay attention. But someone just listening to a
| tune on the radio, humming along to it, I don't think
| they're going to go "yep, that's the good ol' DX7
| electric piano patch" or "yep that's a classic Strat
| sound".
|
| Personally, I think laypeople do identify the 808 in this
| way, just judging from anecdotal conversations with
| people who are not musicians, not DJs, not "serious"
| music fans, just regular people. This is why I think the
| 808 is an interesting instrument, and perhaps special in
| a way that the DX7 wasn't, and the TB-303 and TR-909
| weren't. That doesn't mean those other synths aren't
| special for their own reasons, I was just commenting on
| something I perceive to be unique about the 808 - a
| relatively widespread understanding of what its "sound"
| is.
|
| If you are a hardcore music fan or a musician, it can be
| illuminating to do some testing with someone who isn't.
| Play them a song, point out some piece of equipment,
| explain to them why this song has a 909 hihat but that
| song has a 707 hihat, and how you can tell the
| difference. Then play them another song and see if they
| can identify the hihat. 9 times out of 10 that's not what
| people are listening for. That's not how they experience
| music, they don't break it down like that.
| jancsika wrote:
| > But someone just listening to a tune on the radio,
| humming along to it, I don't think they're going to go
| "yep, that's the good ol' DX7 electric piano patch" or
| "yep that's a classic Strat sound".
|
| At least in the U.S., lay people are notoriously bad at
| even knowing the names of instruments, much less
| pinpointing them in the overall musical texture.
|
| About the only test you could do would be to, say,
| _replace_ the Theremin in Good Vibrations with a string
| synth from the DX7. Most people have never heard of
| either instrument, but many would instantly recognize
| that something is off in that example. Probably the same
| if you replace a stratacaster, vocoder, etc., in a track
| they 're familiar with, especially if you substitute it
| with something from a different historical period.
|
| Other than that, I'm afraid all that's being measured is
| the effect of lack of funding on basic music education in
| the U.S. :)
| ratww wrote:
| I'm not really disputing sales, I'm more disputing the
| claim that it _changed music_ or _made synth music
| mainstream_. Synth music _was_ mainstream before the DX7.
| And I don 't really remember non-musicians talking about
| the DX7 the way most prog music fans (and also some
| Clockwork Orange fans) seem to know Moogs. Or Hammonds.
| 80s pop music fans don't seem to be the kind to do
| reminisce about synths.
|
| About 909s and 303s, like I said, they were special when
| they were in their heyday. Most people knew them by name,
| since there were lots of track titles, there was a TB-303
| reference in Ghost in the Shell, and there are some
| TR-909 and TB-303 tattoos if you search Google... I'm not
| disputing that 808s are more famous now that hip hop is
| very mainstream, the 808 kick drum is in vogue for years
| and Kanye albums have 808s in their title. Like I said,
| you have to keep those things into context when making a
| comparison, otherwise only the 808 will ever count as
| "important"... that's it. Maybe the Moog is a better
| example?
| alisonatwork wrote:
| On the DX7 thing, I expressed myself poorly, I didn't
| mean it made synth music as a genre mainstream, but I do
| think the original commenter was correct to say that it
| changed how synths were used in music simply due to it
| being so affordable and versatile. Now instead of cover
| bands having additional members or multi-instrumentalists
| to play brass or fiddle or whatever, they could just have
| the keyboard player fill that role too. With the DX7 it
| became "good enough" for a single synth to cover all of
| those sounds. It unlocked a door that later on the M1 and
| many other sample-based synths walked through.
|
| On the 909/303, I don't dispute they were incredibly
| influential in the rave scene, especially in the 90s. I
| am one of those people with a 303 tattoo so I know very
| well what a reputation they had. But also I have some
| perspective on how small and dynamic that scene turned
| out to be in the greater scheme of things. Most of the
| ravers I know from back in the day couldn't pick a 303 in
| a song and don't even listen to acid or techno music any
| more.
|
| I think a good comparison to an 808 is a Theremin. Lots
| of people, even people who don't listen to electronic
| music or hip-hop know the names of these instruments and
| can probably pick one out of a song. I'd see the 909 or
| 303 more like a Strat or a Tele - still very influential
| and recognizable to people who are interested, but
| perhaps not so much in the mainstream consciousness.
|
| But this is all opinion just based on anecdotes, so I am
| open to the idea I might be overestimating the cultural
| impact of one bit of gear or the other.
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| The DX7 is also the reason people flooded the market with all
| their classic analog synthesizer. These days, while a DX7 is
| about $800 Australian, an OG Jupiter 8 will set you back $30K AUD
| ratww wrote:
| It's 800 now? I remember seeing them in the early 2000s for
| about 200 USD in used music stores and pawn shops, and even
| then people thought that was expensive since everyone were
| starting to hype analog stuff and had some disdain for them!
| alfiedotwtf wrote:
| Hehe... there's one on Gumtree for $580 AUD!
|
| But at the time, you couldn't give away Prophet 5s! If only I
| had a time machine
| ratww wrote:
| I was too young at the time but I remember older people
| saying the same about Les Pauls, Jazzmasters and vintage
| guitar pedals in the late 80s!
|
| It was truly a weird time in terms of music and music
| equipment! Everything from the 50s/60s/70s went out of
| style, but returned in full force in the 90s, while the 80s
| stuff started getting rejected. Crazy!
| musicale wrote:
| It is true that the DX7 piano (among other presets) was on tons
| of songs, but so was/is the Korg M1 piano sound which became the
| "dance/house" piano of the 1990s. Its punchiness (basically
| compression, fast/percussive attack, quick dropoff, and tinny
| aspect) of the sound worked perfectly, cutting through mixes and
| also working as a solo instrument, providing strong
| melodic/harmonic/rhythmic support without sounding overly harsh.
|
| They're cliches/classics, now, but imitations (and samples) of
| both still abound.
| thewebcount wrote:
| > Korg M1 piano sound which became the "dance/house" piano of
| the 1990s.
|
| And it's bass became famous from Seinfeld. Every time I hear
| that bass, I think of the irritating lead in to every Seinfeld
| episode. So grating.
| type0 wrote:
| M1 beats both DX7 and D-50 in units sold. We are living through
| the death and simultaneous revival of synthesizers, there
| probably won't be any characteristic bestsellers anymore. Last
| I checked MicroKorg was bestselling (in nr of units) current
| synth still in production but it can't leave the same mark on
| the current era of music like DX7 presets did.
| ratww wrote:
| The Microkorg is pretty popular with indie bands, bedroom
| producers and was big in the mid-2000s indie-electro fad. But
| I agree that it didn't leave a mark as big as DX7 or M1! :(
| klodolph wrote:
| I think the biggest synth from the current era will be the
| eurorack. Yes, it's really a form factor and not a synth but
| it's taken off in the past few years in a really startling
| way.
| ratww wrote:
| Maybe in influence... it helped kickstart the modular
| revival and even made other form factors popular again.
|
| But in number of absolute units in operation, I don't
| know... Unless we compare number of modules sold vs number
| of Microkorgs. Modulars are expensive!
| type0 wrote:
| > Modulars are expensive!
|
| So often eurorack synth building ends up in addiction
| like gear acquisition syndrome that it's almost like
| gambling. The only reasonably priced building is via DIY
| kits, but it still end up expensive and even more so time
| consuming, so it suits those who like soldering more than
| making music. I'm excited for a few digital eurorack
| modules, like Erica Synths Black Wavetable VCO, but no
| one could argue that it's affordable for a hobbyist.
| klodolph wrote:
| I think the difference is that units like the microKORG
| will come and go, but new units will often be in Eurorack
| form or be somehow compatible.
|
| Eurorack can be expensive, but Behringer came out with a
| line that includes the Model D, Neutron, Pro-1, K-2,
| Wasp, and CAT--they're all cheap, they're all complete
| synths, and they're _also_ all Eurorack modules that can
| be plugged into a larger system.
|
| Moog is also selling synthesizer modules that are
| actually Eurorack form, but upscale from Behringer.
|
| I don't have a modular synth, but it's getting harder to
| _avoid_ Eurorack.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-01 23:02 UTC)