![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Yes. This. Idealism of "wow this could be the holy grail of realistic synthesis" compared with the result of every damn ballad using the same saccharine rhodes preset.ghettosynth wrote: None of that has anything to do with overestimated. The DX7 was unique in the early 80s, it's simply not today unless you're willing to program it. Previous poster is right, it's one of those synths for which the vast majority of users just used prestes and, really, exclusively used presets.
I think that there is a big difference between talking about a synth vs a product. Even in the 80s, the DX7 WAS overestimated as a synth. The belief that it could recreate any sound, in theory, simply didn't hold up in practice. It would have been a much better synth with analog filters, although, that would most likely have limited its success as a product.
I'm sorry someone not knowing how to normalize an audio file leads you to believe humanity has failedxoxos wrote: i do realise the simple solution to this is to hack a windows audio interface that goes to 1000 instead of 1. but it would be faster if he just killed himself and got out of the way so someone else can have a go at civilisation that isn't a total fuckup.
it's more the suppression of popular benefit and consideration, and the resulting popular indifference to destruction right in front of your faces, but the persistent sheer incompetence, yeah, is not uplifting.nineofkings wrote: I'm sorry someone not knowing how to normalize an audio file leads you to believe humanity has failed
I just visualized the baddies from Doom I desperately trying to go through the wall to reach me on my 75MHz Pentium AST.xoxos wrote:christ i'd chew my nuts off for a species with a brain cell.. its like watching prototype AI bounce into walls, forever.
who says, here's a ten minute interview, i'll leave the audio at -40dB
So it is, in fact, unique. Except when you can't be arsed. Brilliant.ghettosynth wrote: The DX7 was unique in the early 80s, it's simply not today unless you're willing to program it.
LOL! They're all there. You must have missed that part of the class.jancivil wrote:I was programming DX7 extensively in '85-87.
...
And 'it's no longer unique'? Because, what, FM7, FM8? No. Those do_not_have the 32 algorithms. (If you don't get that, well you don't get something, so what.)
Well, Yamaha did, that's why the FS1R has them. The technology for real time digital resonant filters just wasn't there in the early 80s so there was no practical way to incorporate analog filters while keeping the costs down. As soon as it was somewhat practical, Yamaha started incorporating filters.Never once did I think 'this would be better with a filter'.
Nonsense. There are several examples of production synths that used digital waveform generation with analog filters. In particular, additive synthesis can be thought of in much the same ways as FM, it's a "thing" that can be embraced in and of itself, however, it was still better with analog filters owing to technology limitations at the time.I don't think there was really anyone that thought in terms of digital vs analog at that time.
Again, see FS1R and perhaps ask yourself why it has filters if they are unnecessary?I think 'it would have been so much more useful with analog filters' is ignorant and comfort-zone laziness, intellectually.
© KVR Audio, Inc. 2000-2024
Submit: News, Plugins, Hosts & Apps | Advertise @ KVR | Developer Account | About KVR / Contact Us | Privacy Statement