The Fight for FM

[nuffink]

I blame vurt.

[pdxindy]

I blame vurt.

me too! he has me seeing red!!

[nuffink]

I think a shunning's in order.

[pdxindy]

[MaliceX]

Man, all this talk about FM makes me want to rage through different OPL chips and making sounds with them....if only one knew how.

[vurt]

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

am i not allowed an opinion?
just because i dont agree that my dx7 sounds better than any of the software fm i have.
it sounds different, yes, there is no denying this. but better is not a universal constant.

if a thread is only considered productive when people agree with you, then im sorry.
actually, im not sorry at all, dont see why i should be. my opinion is as valid as yours, if you cannot cope with this then the problem is not mine.
you could mute me, if its really that much of a problem

[vurt]

I think a shunning's in order.

me, fair enough. but my wife too?

[tony tony chopper]

I suppose we can conclude that the magic DX7 sounds incredibly more fat, rich, metallic, better on the low/mid/high end, etc than any software FM synth, and that no one here is any INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHY.

It's a national sport here: something is being claimed, proof never comes, and standing against the claim is felt like insulting one's religion/not respecting one's feelings.

[living sounds]

I suppose we can conclude that the magic DX7 sounds incredibly more fat, rich, metallic, better on the low/mid/high end, etc than any software FM synth, and that no one here is any INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHY.

I'd like to know why. But I don't have the means to find it out. If I were a software engineer I'd start digging through the open source code of VOPM. This blurryness is present in a whole lot of plugins in general and there's got to be a reason for it. I won't open the can of worms of integer vs. float here again, because I've taken enough heat over it in other threads without any productive outcome. If you want to know about these differences, try and start to find them out. Look at what happens in VOPM. But since you basically deny they exist ("it's because of patch programming skills") and claim to not hear any differences between converters...
One of the reasons why a lot of the ancient digital stuff still sounds much better than plugins might be because the engineers back then actually listened to what the musicians had to say about sonic preferences - instead of ridiculing them.

[Aroused by JarJar]

I suppose we can conclude that the magic DX7 sounds incredibly more fat, rich, metallic, better on the low/mid/high end, etc than any software FM synth, and that no one here is any INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHY.

It's a national sport here: something is being claimed, proof never comes, and standing against the claim is felt like insulting one's religion/not respecting one's feelings.

Why do you resort to these sophistries? This is a straw man. Living Sounds, and others, have specifically pointed out, a number of times, VOPM, which is not a DX7. I prefer my own software "FM" to any other synth's, it is even better to my taste than the Cyndustries Zeroscillator in terms of completely subjective timbre "color" preference.

And certainly there are many people on KVR who are interested in the "why" of things, take a look at the "snappy envelopes" thread.

Anyway, a couple of points: first of all, "FM synthesis" not only didn't stop in 1983, it didn't even start in 1983, but some 15 years earlier.

As software synthesis, on a great big "warm vintage" mainframe, with punchcards (maybe that's part of the "punchy sound"). So if you really want nostalgic vintage FM, you need to do it with software synthesis (and offline, let it render all nite lawng).

BTW there's no point in this particular discussion going on about the differences between Frequency and Phase Modulation, there's plenty to it all but basically it shouldn't distract in this topic:

PM: cos((angle += incr) + change)
FM: cos(angle += (incr + change))

And we can include Phase Distortion (Casio version) as well as differences between linear and exponential FM etc. by adressing it all as different implementations of "angle modulation" (which is what it all is).

For some reason uploading to our server at the moment is running at a snail's pace, but I'll put up an audio example of something that sounds "proper" to me when I get the chance (right in the middle of rehearsals too but I get to relax when my robots take the reins ).

In the meantime anybody want to post an example of a simple FM sound that sounds firm and solid with no EQ, reverb, or whizzing around?

[tony tony chopper]

what the musicians had to say about sonic preferences - instead of ridiculing them

You mean, marketing were finding something to sell to musicians, to benefit from their false claims, instead of ridiculing them.

Because that's how it always ends up: someone will eventually sell you something you believe in, it doesn't matter if it's true or bs.
There's panic about cellphones being harmful? Here, take this little piece of plastic for $50, its magic counter-rays will protect your brain from all possible cancers. And it will make your calls sound better.

I saw a recent thread about someone saying he tested expensive EQ plugins and concluded it was the biggest con. Well, it's HIS fault in the first place. He thinks/thought that EQ's can sound better? There will obviously be people to sell him a more expensive EQ.

[tony tony chopper]

Living Sounds, and others, have specifically pointed out, a number of times, VOPM

It rather proves my point, that VOPM is supposed to be an emulator. FM7/Sytrus/others are not emulators, they're synths with a lot more capabilities, that have rough import of DX7 settings.
So you surely CAN achieve the same as the original patches you compare to, but it will require tweaking.

I know I couldn't import DX7 features properly by the lack of documentation. Algo's & levels, no problem. But the envelope times were encoded in a special way, I found no info about this. Meaning: if you import a DX7 preset into Sytrus, it will certainly never sound like the original. You can either conclude that it's because it's software & lacks of pixie dust, or you can investigate & find out that it will be the same with some envelope tweaks.
Now there's one DX7 envelope feature that can't be replicated, though. I remember when I read the specs, that the DX7 release was not for a defined length, but down to a level, thus a lower velocity would sustain less (I don't remember the details), and this was not doable with my envelopes.

But yes, I'd like a challenge. We'd need a minimal VOPM preset that supposedly can't be achieved in FM7 or others. I'll try to replicate it in Sytrus.

[Baz_Masterplan]

Record it in a WAV and lets see if somebody can create an FM patch that sounds better.

Then using software create a patch in FM8 and try and make it on the keyboard.

Nostalgia can be a powerful influence

[tony tony chopper]

and plz keep the preset minimal. It takes a lot of time to manually replicate presets.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Living Sounds, and others, have specifically pointed out, a number of times, VOPM

It rather proves my point, that VOPM is supposed to be an emulator. FM7/Sytrus/others are not emulators, they're synths with a lot more capabilities, that have rough import of DX7 settings.
So you surely CAN achieve the same as the original patches you compare to, but it will require tweaking.

I know I couldn't import DX7 features properly by the lack of documentation. Algo's & levels, no problem. But the envelope times were encoded in a special way, I found no info about this. Meaning: if you import a DX7 preset into Sytrus, it will certainly never sound like the original. You can either conclude that it's because it's software & lacks of pixie dust, or you can investigate & find out that it will be the same with some envelope tweaks.
Now there's one DX7 envelope feature that can't be replicated, though. I remember when I read the specs, that the DX7 release was not for a defined length, but down to a level, thus a lower velocity would sustain less (I don't remember the details), and this was not doable with my envelopes.

But yes, I'd like a challenge. We'd need a minimal VOPM preset that supposedly can't be achieved in FM7 or others. I'll try to replicate it in Sytrus.

But your point is sidestepping the real issue. I'm sure every person here who is disappointed in the sound of the FM8 for example will agree with me when I say that the real point is: a sound should sound like a sound, and not like a picture of a sound.

You can always make any sound more pale or pastel, or puffy or distant or weak or whatever. What's desired is a sound that is solid and somehow "real", which can on one hand function with zero effects and on the other endure all kinds of manipulation before fuzzing off into feebleness. The sort of "platonic ideal" or "world champion" of this, and once again I'm dead sure that everyone with years of experience will agree, is a clean mono acoustic recording with a strong midrange. That's about as strong and straight as it gets, and the experienced know that it's the most durable and flexible as well. THAT's sound that sounds like sound and not a picture of sound, and THAT's what we want from synths as well (and it's been done countless times so it sure is doable).

Fundamental, intrinsic quality.

It's quite simple.

Replicating a VOPM preset won't address the issue at all, but a completely different sound that has that firm, "real" quality to it would address the issue precisely.

Edit: Happily when using my new USB interface, my browser doesn't grab the audio driver so I can WWW as the dancer practices, heheh! So I'm downloading the Sytrus demo now and will check it out ASAP. I don't give a flying f**k as to whether it sounds like a DX7 or not, but whether it has that essential kernel to the sound (and whether the color is to my taste).