The Fight for FM

[Nokenoku]

can't be

Ah, never say never.

The right kind of noise in the background can sound very appealing in my opinion. It gives the sound some background, where it comes from.

But yes, there are probably (also) some other factors involved here.

[living sounds]

sadly I see my DX7 import sucks even more than I thought (or I'm loading the wrong files I don't know)

Try this one:

www.scherer.de/Download/DXFiles.rar

I just recorded it. The sysex-file is included, the program changes in the midi file refer to the correct patches.

BTW, I think when it comes to clarity and absense of harshness VOPM sounds even better than my TX7. The latter one has a pretty bad opamp on its output.

[pdxindy]

Quality sound is NOT a flaw. It is a feature that appears by accident or design or both. And once again, I don't give a shit about exactly emulating DX7s, and I doubt that many people actually, really, do. People want FM that doesn't sound "weak", as far as I can tell.

That would be me... I would like a better fundamental sound and to learn. Maybe what I hear is what FM is capable of and that is it. Maybe some people who claim it has been done better are right. It is interesting to explore that.

[pdxindy]

By who's definitions of 'good', 'real', 'solid' and 'musically useful'?

And aren't you in the minority of people who think that those arent already achieved at a sufficient level.

Then for those who think it is achieved to a sufficient level, move on and don't try to impose upon those who want to explore further.

In otherwords, if it interests you to explore the questions being asked, by all means contribute, otherwise go post somewhere else where you have a genuine interest. Be signal, not noise...

[pdxindy]

That's not music, it's just a single tone!

You won't have a difference in the 'bass', 'color' or whatever that appears in music but not single tones, will you?
It's the keyboard mapping that will matter for the music you play, and you said nothing about this originally. Sytrus & FM7 are more than able to keyboard map pretty much any parameter, but do I really have to waste my time copying that too?
Instead I will show what today's FM synths can do that the old stuff couldn't.
(first is VOPM)
http://anothergol.googlepages.com/China3.mp3

Btw: it's pretty clear by now that you did not try to copy a DX7 preset into FM7 and you only judged by what was there.

Thanks for making some samples!!

For comparison of the basic sound, it is harder to compare when you put the effects on it...

[vurt]

That would be me... I would like a better fundamental sound and to learn. Maybe what I hear is what FM is capable of and that is it. Maybe some people who claim it has been done better are right. It is interesting to explore that.

i am indeed interested in discussing the differences between different fm synths.
however surely whether one is better than the other is difficult to discern, each of the ones ive ever tried has its positive and negative when compared to others, and more than anything isnt preference a totally personal thing?
there are things i turn to for one thing and others i turn to for other things, i dont see either as better, just right at the time and more importantly right for me. i would never seek to impose my choices on another as the best.
i will seek to impose a proper use of language when discussing synthesis, otherwise it confuses some of the people newer to all this and they think best actually means something.

as a musician myself and an engineer who over the years has worked with many musicians, i think i can safely say i know what musicians want, or at least that group of musicians
most of em wanted beer and drugs, but thats musicians for you.

[pdxindy]

That would be me... I would like a better fundamental sound and to learn. Maybe what I hear is what FM is capable of and that is it. Maybe some people who claim it has been done better are right. It is interesting to explore that.

i am indeed interested in discussing the differences between different fm synths.
however surely whether one is better than the other is difficult to discern, each of the ones ive ever tried has its positive and negative when compared to others, and more than anything isnt preference a totally personal thing?
there are things i turn to for one thing and others i turn to for other things, i dont see either as better, just right at the time and more importantly right for me. i would never seek to impose my choices on another as the best.
i will seek to impose a proper use of language when discussing synthesis, otherwise it confuses some of the people newer to all this and they think best actually means something.

I understand and agree with your points. Sometimes I prefer to not focus on the use of language cause then the topic is distracted...

Use of the word best is fraught with peril! I agree it is better to use other terminology.

So in regards to FM, there are 2 main points in this for me.

there is the basic sound, and then there is all what you can do with it.

FM8 is an amazing synth. It is easy to use, low cpu, good gui, and the morph pad is fantastic.

When I listen to the basic sound, it lacks a certain coherence, bite, character that I would like. It does bring to mind questions like: Does NI focus less on fundamental sound quality because featureitis is the form of the day? I don't know but the subject interests me.

I really like the approach and concept and sound of the new FXpansion synth squad. Their approach is minimal features, maximal sound quality. I think it shows in the audio demos. All the demos are without effects and the sounds are still full and present and alive.

So I wonder then, with that approach, could an FM synth be crafted that would be fundamentally stronger in its basic sound? Thus my interest in this thread.

[whyterabbyt]

In otherwords, if it interests you to explore the questions being asked, by all means contribute

so many thanks for the permission. it does, which is why i did, and will continue to.

[pdxindy]

In otherwords, if it interests you to explore the questions being asked, by all means contribute

so many thanks for the permission. it does, which is why i did, and will continue to.

excellent... I look forward to a post of yours that contributes

[Aroused by JarJar]

Only have a moment, too busy, but I just wanted to say that both the VOPM and the Sytrus China examples are better as far as the essential quality to the sound than anything I've heard so far from NI FM7/8.

I think the VOPM bell is tuned a hair more inharmonically and has a slower (percieved?) attack, and is less bright, but otherwise it's totally cool to be comparing the "feel" of these examples, they're close enough for that.

Anyway more later gotta run

[Aroused by JarJar]

Okay, I did simpler version of the China Bell, "4-op" with no feedback but obviously the "same" sound.

http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=ChinBellXampl.wav

We're still looking at fundamental sound quality I assume, rather than matters of taste as far as should it be brighter or whatever. So this SHOULD be a subtle matter, though to be honest I find the essential quality of the VOPM, Sytrus and my own example here to be not terribley "subtle" as far as being meatier and more "real" than what I've heard from a number of "FM" synths including NI's.

[nuffink]

There's no such thing as fundamental sound quality when you're producing a sound. There is no datum to measure it against.
If you're reproducing a sound you can talk about fundamental sound quality because there is a datum - the original sound being reproduced.

[living sounds]

There's no such thing as fundamental sound quality when you're producing a sound. There is no datum to measure it against.
If you're reproducing a sound you can talk about fundamental sound quality because there is a datum - the original sound being reproduced.

Of couse there is. A Steinway model D sounds better than a Behringer piano. It produces a far better fundamental sound. You'll have a very hard time to find any pianist who disagrees. You may find philosphers who do, but we're in the business of making music here.
Stop this line of relativistic argumentation already. It's fallacious.

[nuffink]

There's no such thing as fundamental sound quality when you're producing a sound. There is no datum to measure it against.
If you're reproducing a sound you can talk about fundamental sound quality because there is a datum - the original sound being reproduced.

Of couse there is. A Steinway model D sounds better than a Behringer piano. It produces a far better fundamental sound. You'll have a very hard time to find any pianist who disagrees. You may find philosphers who do, but we're in the business of making music here.
Stop this line of relativistic argumentation already. It's fallacious.

Does it f**k produce a better sound. It produces a sound which would probably be preferred by a greater number of people. However if your music calls for the sound of a Behringer piano, then that is the better sound and all the experts in the world can go f**k themselves.

[nuffink]

Oh, and as for you pointing out fallacious arguments, the sound of hollow laughter is echoing round kvr land.