The Fight for FM

[Lotuzia]

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.

Yeah I love that one !

LtZ

[TristezaOrange]

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.

Yeah I love that one !

LtZ

That would be really something, wouldn't it?

[pdxindy]

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.

That is just a conditioned assumption. You haven't a clue if that is the case or not.

[TristezaOrange]

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.

That is just a conditioned assumption. You haven't a clue if that is the case or not.

Hence "probably". I did not state a fact - naturally you must have noticed it yourself because you just called it an assumption.

Now, "you certainly would" - that would really get you, I suppose. Wait - I just assumed something again, hope you were not offended.

[DrWashington]

You can't really work against the overall tone of a synth. If it doesn't sound tight by itself, no amount of programming will make it sound that way.

Yes, yes, exactly! Agreed. This is why I miss my poor, dead, Virus Rack XL so much. Those Motorola DSPs allow them to avoid cutting corners. Nothing worse than nasty digital aliasing, esp. w/ software.

I'm not going to stoop to this 'software v. hardware' debate. That's not where I'm coming from at all. VOPM sounds fantastic, as does Sylenth1, Zebra, and Minimonsta, among many others. It's lazy programming that's gumming the works and making so many otherwise fantastic synths largely throw-away. We shouldn't tolerate or support companies that insist on doing this, though as an NI Komplete 5 owner, I guess I'm guilty as anyone. Can't do without Kontakt and Reaktor, tho. And Battery 2, which I still have. Battery 3 was a huge letdown, in that you can't preview samples when building your own kit cell by cell anymore. The browser is klunky, and it sucks.

The point is, BRILLIANT little synths like VOPM need to be finished. It only got v. 0.17 before it was pretty much dropped. Somebody like GForce, LennarDigital, u-he or D16 Group should pick it up and finish it. That is a WICKED sounding little synth, and I should know, as I've spent many late nights zoning out with it to the point of probably drooling and tuning out any and all possible guerrilla warfare happening outside my door. I wouldn't have noticed.

That's what I'm talking about: toughness and bite that doesn't turn into an ugly, aliased digital smear in the high end. When that happpens, It just makes me want to pull it out of my 'rack' and never use it again. I think electro house has largely popularized the sound of "horrible", and that's something I want to avoid. Crappy, ugly sounds just have no place in music. Ugly sounds, sure, but crappy, ugly ones, no.

Please, please, somebody finish it. MIDI learn

[DrWashington]

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'.

Yes, very well said. I notice problems with <192kbs mp3s that my friends don't notice all the time. I'm very much more sensitive than most people. That's probably why, though not averse to digital, I say if people are going to screw it up and L2 everything to death, then I prefer vinyl. I REMEMBER all those night going to clubs in the late '90s, how GOOD everything sounded. I saw Markus Shulz in Seattle a couple years ago, and he was spinning all mp3s that he had burned to CD, presumably. It sounded awful. Even my father who decided to tag along that night noticed it. It just sounded like ass, it really did. So, I'm pushing hard along with several friends to help bring quality back. I notice it, MANY people notice it, and I miss it. I also miss the subtle random elements introduced to the signal by vinyl. I deliberately try to recreate these elements whenever I can.

[DrWashington]

Not accurate, not noise free, but good.

I think this is the problem in general. I really fail to understand why a musician would want this. A listener, maybe, but wouldn't a musician want full control over what he does? That is, if he asks something to a machine, does he want exactly what he asked, and not something (subjectively) better, thus different?

IMHO a musician should only want accuracy, because the 'good' can be done using the right tools, that you do control (& understand).

A musician would want different things for different situations.


Sometimes noise is appropriate. Richness and warmth is one of the biggest things I want. VOPM can do this. I kid you not. FM can sound exceedingly rich and brilliant. If a little free piece of software can sonically out perform a $250, feature laden mess (FM8), then I really don't know what the world is coming to.

I used to use the HELL out of FM7. I used the copy-paste function constantly. NI yanked it. WHY?

I still use FM7 every now and then, but the sound of VOPM has spoiled me. Now, I only use it if I can't use VOPM in a given situation.

These companies really need to step it up. I'm tired of settling for products that introduce not good 'ol line noise to a signal, but ugly digital FLUFF that cannot be gotten rid of. There's a big difference.

[DrWashington]

I was contemplating that as far as maximizing FM8 sound quality, not emulating an old synth

ry little presets in Sytrus are purely FM, FM is just unimpressive alone, unless you want bells or bass.

ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. This is so completely untrue, I don't know where to begin. Look, I've been programming synths since circa 1984, seriously since '96. I find ALL major forms of synthesis useful in certain situations. FM is, if you know what you're doing, BY ITSELF, incredibly expressive and useful. It only comes alive if you really get a feel for how it works, and aren't just dinking around trying to emulate some bell or bass sound you heard somewhere and assumed was FM.

FM can sound absolutely wild, can go from a stately gentleman to a rampaging monster in a moment, and you can hear the whole transition in realtime, where several operators are all changing value and affecting the sound at once. The effect can be totally jaw dropping through a good system. I have an RME card an HR824s, and I've literally given myself goose bumps and fits of laughter programming FM leads before. It's really exciting if you know how it works. Give it a chance. And, for the love of God, STOP with this obsessive need to emulate certain TYPES of sounds! Electronic music is about creativity, originality, making sounds that can't be categorized easily. Am I right? God, I sure hope so... the fact that we HAVE synthesizers, coupled with the fact that we keep recycling sounds, makes me sad.

[DrWashington]

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.

Out of everyone posting here, I think you probably make the most sense, or are right up there.

Here's a great example of why I agree: there's a patch from Kontakt 2 that I love called Fivepad. I'm assuming it's sampled from a real Prophet 5. It captures that oscillator 'roll' sound that is indescribable, but uniquely noticeable coming from a Prophet. The fact that its a digital sample makes no difference. The sound is captured beautifully. It's GORGEOUS, in fact. If you have Kontakt 2 (I have all three now, so load it in 3 from the 2 lib. if you like), go have a listen, you'll see what I mean.

Capturing THAT in software is what the vast majority of these companies are overlooking. I could program Pro-53 till I was blue in the face, and I couldn't get that sound. Of course, I could get billions of other sounds, but not that specific one, because the oscillators don't have that 'magic' that the real Prophet has. I am NOT opposed to digital; quite the contrary. I just see no reason why these companies can't decipher what qualities are making those Prophet oscillators, for instance, so special, and modeling it.

From what I hear, Creamware do a pretty good job of this, and, of course, DSI has it DOWN, which obviously makes sense, in that he's using true analog for the newer stuff.

Regardless, how sweet it'd be if these companies started concentrating on the most basic things, like that oscillator 'roll', accurately emulating that, and THEN adding all the features most of us will never, ever use if the sound coming out of it to begin with is nothing special.

That Kontakt 2 patch? To my ears, that is SPECIAL. And, yes, I AM a musician, and an engineer. So what?

[Nokenoku]

I REMEMBER all those night going to clubs in the late '90s, how GOOD everything sounded. I saw Markus Shulz in Seattle a couple years ago, and he was spinning all mp3s that he had burned to CD, presumably. It sounded awful.

It has rather to do with the room, the audio systems and whatever other factors rather than the MP3-compression (especially if the DJ more than 128kbps).

Anyways, I know what you're talking about with different sounding FM synths. I remember, here was a thread once, where one guy showed some examples of the same sound done with different FM synths. One clearly sounded better. I don't know why, but it was like that.

[living sounds]

Anyways, I know what you're talking about with different sounding FM synths. I remember, here was a thread once, where one guy showed some examples of the same sound done with different FM synths. One clearly sounded better. I don't know why, but it was like that.

That might have been me:
www.scherer.de/Download/DXtest.rar

[Tux]

Slightly OT:

Moderator on Yamaha forum doesn't know what he's on about, telling everyone that PM synthesis was used by Casio! AAArrggh!

And that's why I'm not a member. (That and the fact that I don't own any Yamaha gear apart from a dinky SU10 sampler.)

I was researching the difference between FM and PM synthesis. I should have maybe just ploughed through this thread, it was probably explained somewhere.

I think I found the answer - Negligible.

[vurt]

Anyways, I know what you're talking about with different sounding FM synths. I remember, here was a thread once, where one guy showed some examples of the same sound done with different FM synths. One clearly sounded better to me. I don't know why, but it was like that.

That might have been me:
www.scherer.de/Download/DXtest.rar

fixed.

[nuffink]

[living sounds]

Up until very recently this was a very productive thread (by kvr-standarts at least)...