Yamaha DX7II VSTi

[beely]

I don't think FM7/FM8 was ever intended to reproduce the DX7

What? Of course it was, that's why they modelled it in such detail (they didn't get some of the original hardware's quirks on some extreme parameters) and that's why they offered sysex import of original DX patches. It's why they called in "FM7" for goodness sake!

It was intended to emulate the DX7, and then go further by taking advantage of the extra things you can do with software.

[murnau]

Wouldn't that be great? FM8 just isn't good enough. Yamaha need to release a VSTi of their great synth, just as Korg did with the M1...

what exactly isn't good enough when it can import DX7 Sysex files directly and they sound the same 99%?

[trusampler]

Perhaps the op takes favor to the original dx7s d/a converters. This can change the perception of what one hears

[Numanoid]

For hardcore DX enthusiast, I would think somethinge like the FB01 would be cool to check out, takes very little space, plug it into your computer to feast on those 80's sounds

http://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/fb01.php

There is an Ebay auction at the moment, where it can be had for 50 quid, far less than you would be paying for VST plugins like FM8 or Sytrus.

[zerocrossing]

I can't speak to the DX7II, but I recently had a friend's original DX7 over here. I thought FM8 sounded a billion times better in every respect. Cleaner, clearer, brighter, and capable of so much more.

I do have a another friend with a DX7IIFD, so I'm curious to make that comparison, but so far I'm not impressed with the hardware nostalgia (at least in this case- I do have plenty of old hardware of my own!)

There in lies the rub, eh? Define "better." It's in the ears of the beholder. Yeah, if you're going for a smoother glossier sound and you like that NI aesthetic, FM8 is great, though, I find products like Toxic Biohazard and Octopus to sound closer to what I like to hear. To me the DX line was so hard to program I'd sooner use software anyway, though when I found the DX200 I fell in love. Grittier and knobby. FUN. If there's a DX to own that's it IMO. One day maybe an FS1r... but they seem to command too much for my pockets.

If you want a DX7, get one. They're all over the place for pretty cheap. If you can't be bothered I bet if you ran FM8 though Decimort or some other crunchifier, you'd get close enough and have a much better UI to boot.

[Lotuzia]

I do not think you can make a Yamaha DX-7 emulation better than the FM8.

Thanks a lot Mr Dragon and Ingo

Nori did an awsome soundbank for the FM8, also on our site ( and did some presets for the Yamaha Hw units, as I did some )

Well, I still have a Dx7IID, a TX802 and a TG77 ( Xpander of the SY ), and the closest in the sound, atm, and ime, is certainly NI FM8. Not only does it have the exact same parameters set, but the import will also get you the closest to the Original Dx patches.

Imported patches on FM7/FM8 can sound drastically different than they do on the Hardware DX7. The patches with more harmonics make the difference more obvious.

That may be true but in a production no one hears the difference.
No one hears the grass grow.

I have to admit, I tried important the original DX7 factory presets into FM8, and some of them sounded pretty messed up... particularly the electric piano. I think this has more to do with NI needing to improve their importer, or making sure parameter values are scaled appropriately, rather than the DX7 just sounding "better" due to low quality D/As. Then I skimmed through the FM8 library presets and found a bunch of other electric piano patches, all of which sounded better than the original (at least in my opinion).

Yes some of the imported patches dont work as expected. They need more or less tweaking to sound similar to the originals. And some will sound a bit different in any case. I also think that the parameters scaling might differ.

Another softsynth imported Dx sysex ( cant remember wich one atm) and in the process put all ops output value at a fixed settings, and this one was especially messy, or useless to be exact. Some other synths try to do better. I did not test them all. ( but I tested a lot ), and still, imho, FM7 did the better job. Far better job.

The FM7/8 replicates all the parameters of original Yamahas series. And add more. This can be seen like a big plus by some, less by others, while some wont event care. As I still have all my Yam HW synths, I must admit that I dont care that much, and use more the fm7/8 to design new patches, most of them would not have been possible on the Dx series. I've made a few hundred patches on the HW series, but I did not use them as a basis. It was much more fun to restart from the beginning with a brand new unit.

LtZ

[Uncle E]

what exactly isn't good enough when it can import DX7 Sysex files directly and they sound the same 99%?

To me, UVI's FMX1 sounds more like a real DX7 than FM8 does. I like and use FM8 a lot, just not for authentic DX7 or DX100 sounds.

[beely]

To me, UVI's FMX1 sounds more like a real DX7 than FM8 does.

Well, isn't that just samples of a real DX7? No wonder it sounds like one..!

[BBFG#]

I owned the original DX7 and the DX7II. The II was far superior sonically.

Now I own FM8, haven't had it very long but it seems to have what my DX7II had sonically. To be fair, a lot of the 'classic' FM sounds almost every digital synth has covered more than adequately. The one sound I'm lacking from my original DX sound list is simply a Pedal Steel with modified envelopes they used on the old Benetar's 'Le Bel Age' song. And only because I've been too lazy to tweak it.

FM was the rationale that started the idea of 'computers can do it better'.

And concerning FM, I agree.

[Uncle E]

To me, UVI's FMX1 sounds more like a real DX7 than FM8 does.

Well, isn't that just samples of a real DX7? No wonder it sounds like one..!

Exactly! FM8, though cool in its own way, doesn't sound like that.

[Numanoid]

I must admit that I don't understand anybody wanting the hardcore DX sounds.

If anything ruined 80's music it was the DX7's and their like.

I remember seeing one video of Midge Ure talking synths, and then being excited about a new one (DX7) that they were going to use a lot.

I don't get the artists of the 80's, they had all the fatness in the world, but choose to follow the thinner than thinnest path

[beely]

I don't get the artists of the 80's, they had all the fatness in the world, but choose to follow the thinner than thinnest path

In part it was fashion - the new synths were modern, futuristic, smaller and lighter, reliable, had memories and instant access to lots of sounds, more polyphony, MIDI and so on - the old synths were large, heavy, limited patches and polyphony, tuning issues, maintenance and reliability issues.

Plus, the new instruments just simply made sounds that hadn't been done before, and so musicians were excited to get access to new sounds and tonal possibilities. In particular, the DX7, while sounding generally crap, could do the spiky, fast, percussive and bright sounds that existing analogs just didn't do that well.

Mind you, hearing actually how a raw Fairlight, DX7 on LinnDrum sounds like, it's a wonder those records back then sounded as good as they did - as ever, it's really the arrangement and ultimately the mix that will make anything shine, be it a Casio VL1 or the most expensive dream synth in the world...

[Numanoid]

Plus, the new instruments just simply made sounds that hadn't been done before, and so musicians were excited to get access to new sounds and tonal possibilities.

But most of them just used the presets, that's the main problem.

If they at least could have run it trough a couple of FX boxes. But no, the sound had to be drier than dry...

Klaus Schulze in the 80's remind me of the 64 bit plugin brigade now, ach ja, ich must be 100% digital, then alles ist gut ja

[BBFG#]

I sold DX9 & DX7 when they first came out.
What made them desirable then was their ability to come close to real instruments, not new and strange ones, that came later. Samplers were still in their infancy when the DX's hit the scene and it fit the bill since what most of us wanted was a gigging machine to replicate the pianos/string/horn/orchestras better, so everyone strived for it and a chosen analog. It really was that simple when it started.

Add/edit: As time went on, there was something else that showed them to be better for the gigging musician. They were more consistent and didn't have the analog problems of drifting oscilators, dumped memories and service down times associated with true analogs. Production and service costs took its toll on analogs and made the digital market excel. Finding better ways to emulate analog has been the goal ever since.

[stikygum]

It would be cool if software could nail the sound of a DX7, but there will always be the extra warmth/grit that hardware will provide. So the way I see it is:

The Hardware FM synths out there are supreme.

The Software FM synths are the cheaper alternatives that sound nice and are pretty dang close to original DX7 sounds, but the convertors will always be missing in the sound. That's just a fact. It's a question whether other can decypher the 2. It could be the case where your significant other can't tell the difference or it might be obvious what sounds better.

If you don't want to hook up hardware, the software alternatives are the way to go. But, if you don't mind being able to hook up a Yamaha synth to your computer and use and editor will give you maximum sonics and easy editability.

If the OP wanted a DX7, then a TX7 or TX802 with a software editor might be a good choice.