The Fight for FM

[pdxindy]

So you're actually debating in a forum about your feelings? I don't see the point.
I thought that musicians would want to know better about the technical side, because afterall the creativity isn't to be debated, and feeling/perception is very personal. So if you like old FM hardware for sentimental reasons, fine, but that won't make then sound any better for the end listener.

I am not debating about my likes and dislikes.

I am questioning your mental conceptions about feeling/perception.

The human being is a remarkably sensitive instrument. It perceives all sorts of things that science has not discovered yet. History is full with examples where people 'feel' something, are ridiculed for it because it is not scientifically understood, only to have their 'feeling' vindicated. And of course there are placebo effects, false perceptions based on wishful thinking etc. An open mind is needed.

I think you are really quick to dismiss peoples perceptions as bullshit and quick to trust some 'test' that is not definitive at all. I find your opinion a bit suspect because of your sentimentality towards 'science'.

[tony tony chopper]

Ok so nothing beats a DX7, because only the DX7 is a DX7, and a software can't match the nostaliga, the feel of controls under fingers, etc? So basically, 'the fight for FM' can only see the DX7 winning because any challenger is not a DX7? That doesn't leave much room for facts.

Anyway, since the beginning of this thread I say that if you hear something that you think can't be done with soft FM synths, it's all in your head.
Now you seem to agree that yes, it's all in your head, but that it's a good point. I'm not really judging this, just knowing that it's indeed all in your head is enough for me, as long as it's clear.

I am questioning your mental conceptions about feeling/perception.

There's just no one who's doing music to only for himself to listen. You, as a musician, should differenciate feelings/faith from facts, simply because the listeners won't share the same as yours. The listener won't recognize a DX7, and if you perceived the quality of your music only according to your feelings, it will be crap to the listener.

You could as well record the silence in your attic, and blame the listeners of your silent track for knowing nothing about the purity of silence, for not hearing the spiders waving their webs & the dust falling. They won't hear what you hear and you will pass for a weirdo.

I think you are really quick to dismiss peoples perceptions as bullshit and quick to trust some 'test' that is not definitive at all.

I wrote that the Stradivarius doesn't sound different from other good violins and that was the fact that was proven (& it certainly can be proven).
I'm not talking about its other qualities, it's probably a good monetary investment, its name probably has the power to make people think it sounds great.

[Lotuzia]

I don't know to who you were answering Tony but my own feeling is that there's no war or winners : we're only debating here of what we see as features of all pretenders with Fm synthesis.

For example the Tx7 has been praised here. But the rare ones I met had a terrible drawback (at least vs KB Dx series) : A very bad signal/noise ratio, much worse than the hi-end tx816 modules, wich could imply poorer gain circuitry. Wich might also be the cause of a perceived "thicker" sound, as the algorytms are identical to DX series. Other things to be considered is the limited Velocity sensitivity of some earlier Dx keyboards models ( Dx7 first version for example). Less velocity rersolution can also give the perception of a thicker sound. (other will see this as "poor response").

And the TG 77 sounded also different. So even Yamaha HW synths, though basically sharing the same technical features, did have a different sound.

As for the sw Vsti pretenders, we have been discussing the "possibility" of some synths to emulate the most closely possible the Yam synths. This doesn't imply they are better or worse. Towic for example is far from the FM possibilities of a simple DX7, thus the FM algos are not fixed, and it adds a filter and all these kind of things. It doesn't make Toxic a "bad" synth. Fm7 also adds a filter as well as "enhanced" enveloppes, Sytrus adds a lot of the above including Unisson, but you might already be aware of this

Comparing HW and SW synths is pretty hard, cos the first thing you will meet at the end of your signal chain on a PC is your soundcard. And soundcards sound very different too. Including those who should be transparent as Adat channels aso. Here again we could talk AD/DA converters all night long.

So the Yamaha synths are just a handy reference, probably because they were pionners, and probably because they have made their proofs in term of musicality and musical use during two decades. No more, ......... but no less.

FM synthesis history was certainly not closed in 1983, and a lot is still to discover. But this doesn't imply either that if an FM synth is made in 2009 it will be necessarily better than its ancesters.

my 0.002

LtZ

[pdxindy]

I think you are really quick to dismiss peoples perceptions as bullshit and quick to trust some 'test' that is not definitive at all.

I wrote that the Stradivarius doesn't sound different from other good violins and that was the fact that was proven (& it certainly can be proven).

The certainty of what is 'proven' is not as certain as you want to think it is. Plenty of proven things have later been proven wrong, or incomplete, or based on assumptions that make the point trying to be proved absurd.

And like I said, plenty of perceptions of individuals, ridiculed at the time, have later been 'proven' correct.

You seem quick to say that someones perceptions are sentimental bullshit. Now in some case this assessment would be right, but in some cases it will be wrong. And in some cases there is a sentimental reliance on 'science'.


In the context of FM synths, maybe there is a quality to the DX7 that pleases people that is missed in the softsynths. I cannot comment on that as I don't have one to compare with. I do note that when a couple people have described the difference, their description of Fm7/8 coincides with my perceptions of it. Because of that I think, hmm, maybe if I had a DX7 I would like something about its basic sound better too.

[tony tony chopper]

but my own feeling is that there's no war or winners

thread is named 'the fight for FM'..

Fm7 also adds a filter as well as "enhanced" enveloppes, Sytrus adds a lot of the above including Unisson, but you might already be aware of this

surely not every synth (I'd say there may be only 3) have enough features to accurately translate DX7 patches, but that doesn't mean 'more bass' or BS like I've read.

But this doesn't imply either that if an FM synth is made in 2009 it will be necessarily better than its ancesters.

you can make worse if you really try, but again, it's digital processing of the 80's, it's not like it required a lot of power or a lot of features to emulate.

The certainty of what is 'proven' is not as certain as you want to think it is.

While I didn't make the test so I'm only trusting those who did, it surely can be certain: poll 1000 people (ok I guess they didn't poll up to 1000), and if the results are equally spread, then it becomes a FACT that people can't recognize the -sound- of a Stradivarius, and you can't argue with that.

You may think that the fact I blindly trusted their claim is faith, I'd reply that I tend to believe someone who claims "we've done blind testing on X people and it proved to be that way" more than another who claims "it's this way because god/my feelings/my spider senses told me".

And like I said, plenty of perceptions of individuals

except that it proved that they did NOT perceive a difference

You seem quick to say that someones perceptions are sentimental bullshit

I say that it shouldn't be involved in a comparison between synths

maybe there is a quality to the DX7 that pleases people that is missed in the softsynths

and I'd like to know which one, it would be more informative than sentimentalism

their description of Fm7/8 coincides with my perceptions of it

one thing to remember is that people usually use meaningless terms (fat, cold, etc) to describe audio, and that you may agree on something sounding 'cold' while the other one was naming 'cold' something totally different.

[living sounds]

It's not sentimentalism, it's having tools that work. For me it's that simple. Yes, there's also more fun in playing the TX7 due to the sonics, but the important bis is that you get a finished sound right away, a sound that integrates seamlessly into a mix. A sound that takes a lot of processing without folding in. A sound that is interesting. That's what this is all about.

It seems to me there are a lot of people with a developers point of view, an engineers perspective, but very little actual experience in producing, mixing, making music. I use many hardware devices with inferior specs in terms of the usual noise or distortion measurements, simply because they add so much to the whole picture. In the end this is art, it's about psychoacoustics.

There is a set of rules to human perception of sound and music, but you're grossly oversimplifying them when a you look for is low noise and a flat frequency response gathered from a sine sweep.

[TristezaOrange]

but the important bis is that you get a finished sound right away, a sound that integrates seamlessly into a mix. A sound that takes a lot of processing without folding in

OK, but can I simply ask "why?" - what is the reason for this? Can you explain it? If you cannot, if there are no *facts* to support it other that "That's what I'm hearing" then it's quite possible (let's be honest, almost certain) that it's in your head.

Granted, music is about feeling and you should use what makes you more inspired and productive but you should also admit that nostalgia plays a huge part in what you're perceiving.

Contemplate this: if software synths had come out first and they were your first instruments, wouldn't you try to replicate that sound on the newer, hardware synths of my alternate universe example? You probably would.

[living sounds]

but the important bis is that you get a finished sound right away, a sound that integrates seamlessly into a mix. A sound that takes a lot of processing without folding in

OK, but can I simply ask "why?" - what is the reason for this? Can you explain it? If you cannot, if there are no *facts* to support it other that "That's what I'm hearing" then it's quite possible (let's be honest, almost certain) that it's in your head.

Granted, music is about feeling and you should use what makes you more inspired and productive but you should also admit that nostalgia plays a huge part in what you're perceiving.

Contemplate this: if software synths had come out first and they were your first instruments, wouldn't you try to replicate that sound on the newer, hardware synths of my alternate universe example? You probably would.

I never had analog hardware until quite recently. I tried for years and years to get what I wanted, what I heard in all the music out there all ITB. It's not nostalgia, it's what works (right now, in a few years things might look quite differently).

[TristezaOrange]

OK, but even ruling out the nostalgia factor, it could still be anything. eg. trying to justify the purchase of an expensive hardware unit - not to us, but to yourself. I don't know. However, my point still stands: until there is evidence that what you say is true, it's not.

[pdxindy]

but the important bis is that you get a finished sound right away, a sound that integrates seamlessly into a mix. A sound that takes a lot of processing without folding in

OK, but can I simply ask "why?" - what is the reason for this? Can you explain it? If you cannot, if there are no *facts* to support it other that "That's what I'm hearing" then it's quite possible (let's be honest, almost certain) that it's in your head.

"let's be honest, almost certain" ??

Oh what irony!!!! You say you stand with facts and then you make absurd unsubstantiated claims about the psyche of someone you have never met!

Talk about blind zealotry on behalf of an ideology!

[living sounds]

OK, but even ruling out the nostalgia factor, it could still be anything. eg. trying to justify the purchase of an expensive hardware unit - not to us, but to yourself. I don't know. However, my point still stands: until there is evidence that what you say is true, it's not.

Hey, I don't have to convince anyone here. And sound quality is not something that can easily be determined. All I care for is I can finally make my music sound the way I want to. I've also build most of my analog gear myself. This BTW helped understanding better what is important in terms of sound, too.

[pdxindy]

However, my point still stands: until there is evidence that what you say is true, it's not.

You cannot prove that either. All you can say is you do not believe what he is saying is true (and you are not really willing to consider it)

[TristezaOrange]

but the important bis is that you get a finished sound right away, a sound that integrates seamlessly into a mix. A sound that takes a lot of processing without folding in

OK, but can I simply ask "why?" - what is the reason for this? Can you explain it? If you cannot, if there are no *facts* to support it other that "That's what I'm hearing" then it's quite possible (let's be honest, almost certain) that it's in your head.

"let's be honest, almost certain" ??

Oh what irony!!!! You say you stand with facts and then you make absurd unsubstantiated claims about the psyche of someone you have never met!

Talk about blind zealotry on behalf of an ideology!

Wow, talk about unnecessary overreaction to a comment I made in passing on a forum on the interweb. Have a beer.

Also, it should be quite evident [to anyone that wouldn't want to get unnecessarily riled over something as trivial as this, that is] that I was not describing living sounds or anyone in particular but everyone making unsubstantiated claims about the validity of a 'fact' based on their own preferences.

[TristezaOrange]

However, my point still stands: until there is evidence that what you say is true, it's not.

You cannot prove that either. All you can say is you do not believe what he is saying is true (and you are not really willing to consider it)

Again, it's a universal statement. Prove something or it's a theory you came up with.

[TristezaOrange]

OK, but even ruling out the nostalgia factor, it could still be anything. eg. trying to justify the purchase of an expensive hardware unit - not to us, but to yourself. I don't know. However, my point still stands: until there is evidence that what you say is true, it's not.

Hey, I don't have to convince anyone here. And sound quality is not something that can easily be determined. All I care for is I can finally make my music sound the way I want to. I've also build most of my analog gear myself. This BTW helped understanding better what is important in terms of sound, too.

Don't get me wrong. I'm glad you're happy with your choices. It's what works for you, right?