Overestimated synths?

[jancivil]

What we have learned is that when you add filters to FM you get a better instrument. That is a fact that no amount of hagiographic whining will change.

Main weakness especially of the DX7 Mk1 was/is analog synth emulation. So if you're after typical analog subtractive synthesis sounds with FM synths, then yes, filter(s) can help.

What if they're sluggish filters? Oh no, filters per se have to make a better instrument because that's what you understand better. That clothing is sheer.
& sure, 'better' is just completely objective now, to suit that.
Chase your tail, do.

While my argument is simple, filters have f**k all to do with it, and that synthesizer is powerful regardless.
What's tough to grasp there, except to be obtuse about it.

What is the hagiographic whining? That is TRULY desperate. Chowning's a genius and you're not. How's that?

Anyway, while you cannot obtain actual subtractive synthesis with Yamaha FM, there is totally tautological statement in there; if you're after subtractive synthesis, then yes filters can help.

[EnGee]

- regarding the structure of the algorithms
FM8's #1:



DX7 Algorithm #1:



So, yeah, I don't know quite what to do with that. I don't really regard myself as smart like that anyway. I never sussed the Rubik Cube, you know.
But to me, that just isn't it.

But this algo is easy to do in FM8! Maybe you can do all of them (the 32 algorithms of DX7) and save them for easy future recall.

[jancivil]

I'm not seeing it. I'm attached to the modus operandi I guess, and I guess I'm not clever like that.
I have a demo of FM8, I haven't bought a license and this is why I won't be.
Thanks for trying.

[ghettosynth]

"... overestimated at the time" - because it could not synthesize absolutely anything.
Ok, John Chowning did rather believe that the method could. I rather doubt he claimed that about the DX7, in any form.

The extent of Chowning's work is dramatically deeper than this Yamaha product. This was far from an ultimate presentation. If there's some marketing that seemed excessive, that seems hardly unusual.

Nobody said otherwise. I'm not sure what your argument is here? That said, his attitude about it is restrained as an academic's should be. That doesn't mean that papers don't oversell, they do, most academic publications do to some extent, but, much of the understanding of FM modulation predates Chowning by decades. He "discovered" its use for sound synthesis and he corrects Dave Smith as such in the video above. Moreover, much of our understanding about the value of FM in the context of sound synthesis was discovered over the subsequent two decades following Chowing, i.e., not necessarily by Chowning, as will almost always be the case with academic work. The synth was groundbreaking, the technology (FM as per synthesis), however, was overestimated as a method for commercial sound synthesizers. It is not simply a matter of adding more operators, nor is it simply a matter of "analog sound." FM is simply BETTER when combined with other technologies.

At the time, the DX7 would have been a much better synthesizer, although probably not a better product, if it had incorporated the analog filters of the day. Because of beliefs about FM, the general perception of analog vs digital, and costs, they were not incorporated into the product. That doesn't make my statement false.

FM, as a method, cannot simply and successfully replace the role of filters at the per voice level other than in straightforward configurations (algorithms) and for the simplest concept of a filter. The same holds for saturation and other per/voice modifications of spectrum. They are useful in other architectures and they are useful with FM. Yes, spectrum modification with FM is interesting, so is spectrum modification with fantastic filters, the former cannot replace the latter in any practical sense whatsoever. This is a part of what the research record has shown (by extension), that is, as the signal becomes more complex, the parameter mapping becomes impractical. Chowning's expectation that the method was more universal than it actually is in practice was somewhat naive and based on, AFAIK, basic results owing to Fourier.

None of what I'm saying is intended to diminish the work of Chowning. However, there are very few results that are completely the work of one person and he is no exception. His work is built on the works of others and others have built on his work. His unvalidated beliefs at the time have been shown to be somewhat overstated in practice. Therefore, we shouldn't look only to Chowning to understand how to use FM in the context of sound synthesis.

[ghettosynth]

I'm not seeing it. I'm attached to the modus operandi I guess, and I guess I'm not clever like that.
I have a demo of FM8, I haven't bought a license and this is why I won't be.
Thanks for trying.

When you see it, you will slap your forehead in one of those doh! moments. Seriously, this is basic.

The boxes with numbers are the box to drag for the operator level. To get self feedback as in the algorithm that you posted, drag the box above the operator. To get feedback from further down the chain, drag the box that is in the intersection of the two operators but above the diagonal row of operators. To get modulation drag the box that is in the intersection of the two operators but below the diagonal row. To get the output from any chain, drag the box that is in the bottom row and beneath the operator that you wish to output.

[EnGee]

I'm not seeing it. I'm attached to the modus operandi I guess, and I guess I'm not clever like that.
I have a demo of FM8, I haven't bought a license and this is why I won't be.
Thanks for trying.

Maybe like this:

DX_Algo01.JPG

FM8 is from my favourite synths. It is really a great synth. IMO, it worth the investment to learn it

Anyway, if you want a good emulation of DX7 algos, then try the free one Dexed. It is really good, but I prefer the FM8 interface to be honest.

[ghettosynth]

BTW: FM8 is chock full of sounds that are non-trivial and most likely impossible to do with only six operators and no saturator or filter. Many of them aren't even using the filter as part of the direct output, rather, it is incorporated into the feedback path.

Go to the expert page and use the scroll buttons at the top of the instrument to see the algorithms change as your scroll through. Any algorithm with X uses the saturator page and any with Z is using the filter page. Single click on the operator to see how it is being used without changing anything.

In particular, check out Mamma's of Mayhem. Now, this is not necessarily one of my own favorite patches, it just makes a point easily. Notice that it uses all six operators as well as the saturator and the filter. To disable an operator you can just right click on it. So, try playing the patch and then disabling the filter while you're playing it. Do the same with the saturator. Notice how much of the sound comes from both of them but also notice how it changes the sound. Try saving it and recreating it without either the filter or saturator. Let me know when you've achieved that, I'd love to take a listen.

Keep in mind that I think that the FM8 filter is a piece of shit, and yet it's still useful.

Also check out Manmachine and notice how the filter ring is an important part of the sound. Since it's only using three of the six operators, this should be a trivial exercise to replace the filter with pure FM, right?

[pdxindy]

Yes, you said that already, what is it? In fact, define "organic sound."

I define organic (in the synthesized sound not food context) as a sound that is not easily identified as being made by a synthesizer and could well be an ambient recording or some physical instrument making it.

[Auplant]

Didn't the DX7 only use sine waves for the operators? That's what I read at least..never used one. I wouldn't call it overestimated because of that though, I created crazy textures only using sine wave in the operators on FM8. But I guess it's lacking due to the fact that it has no filter and no built in effects

[ghettosynth]

Didn't the DX7 only use sine waves for the operators? That's what I read at least..never used one. I wouldn't call it overestimated because of that though, I created crazy textures only using sine wave in the operators on FM8. But I guess it's lacking due to the fact that it has no filter and no built in effects

Yes, but I'm not saying that it was "lacking." I'm just saying that it was "overestimated." People expected more from it and FM in general.

[chk071]

Yes, you said that already, what is it? In fact, define "organic sound."

I define organic (in the synthesized sound not food context) as a sound that is not easily identified as being made by a synthesizer and could well be an ambient recording or some physical instrument making it.

Not really what i meant with it. I see now that it isn't really telling anything though, even for people with a long experience in messing with synthesizers. I will rest my case then. Just imagine i didn't say anything.

[jancivil]

"... overestimated at the time" - because it could not synthesize absolutely anything.
Ok, John Chowning did rather believe that the method could. I rather doubt he claimed that about the DX7, in any form.

The extent of Chowning's work is dramatically deeper than this Yamaha product. This was far from an ultimate presentation. If there's some marketing that seemed excessive, that seems hardly unusual.

Nobody said otherwise. I'm not sure what your argument is here? That said, his attitude about it is restrained as an academic's should be. That doesn't mean that papers don't oversell, they do, most academic publications do to some extent, but, much of the understanding of FM modulation predates Chowning by decades. He "discovered" its use for sound synthesis and he corrects Dave Smith as such in the video above.

WHO CARES? Me being interested in this, I'm fairly up on the history.
Are you trying to sell me on the idea you're an expert? What were you specifically engaged in, synth-wise, in 1983-4?

He wrote papers about what HE DID. He composed genius music in my estimation.
So, you have this strong opinion (essentially about the more popular 'estimation' of a product) you want taken as fact, I don't. (and you said 'The DX7 was overestimated at the time', by the argument that unlike the hype, it was not the be-all and end-all of synthesis. I addressed precisely that but noooooooo.) That's the end of it.

[ghettosynth]

"... overestimated at the time" - because it could not synthesize absolutely anything.
Ok, John Chowning did rather believe that the method could. I rather doubt he claimed that about the DX7, in any form.

The extent of Chowning's work is dramatically deeper than this Yamaha product. This was far from an ultimate presentation. If there's some marketing that seemed excessive, that seems hardly unusual.

Nobody said otherwise. I'm not sure what your argument is here? That said, his attitude about it is restrained as an academic's should be. That doesn't mean that papers don't oversell, they do, most academic publications do to some extent, but, much of the understanding of FM modulation predates Chowning by decades. He "discovered" its use for sound synthesis and he corrects Dave Smith as such in the video above.

WHO CARES? Are you trying to sell me on the idea you're an expert?
He wrote papers about what HE DID. He composed genius music in my estimation. So, you have this strong opinion you want taken as fact, I don't. That's the end of it.

I'm not the least bit interested in what he composed, this isn't a discussion about that. I'm even less interested in your assessment of genius.

In any case, I think that my post is the end of it. Your POV has been shown to lack evidence and you're now left with nothing to say. This is far cry from your rude claims made earlier in the thread before you learned a few things from me.

In any case, I don't claim to be an "expert" in anything here, but I do have some knowledge and experience that I believe exceeds yours. You certainly don't know how to use FM8, so that's confirmed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that you don't really have much experience with academic publication either? Is that not correct? Did you publish papers before you dropped out of school?

[jancivil]

OMFG, what projection. Your argumentation is filled with fallacy. The entire thing is essentially opinion in the first place, you have this contention that yours is scientific fact but I require evidence. FOR A POINT OF VIEW, your words for it. You're really the very picture of Dunning-Kruger Effect here. And so desperate! Who do you think is fooled by this posturing, exactly.

[ghettosynth]

OMFG, what projection. Your argumentation is filled with fallacy. The entire thing is essentially opinion in the first place, you have this contention that yours is scientific fact but I require evidence. FOR A POINT OF VIEW, your words for it. You're really the very picture of Dunning-Kruger Effect here. And so desperate! Who do you think is fooled by this posturing, exactly.

So, that's a "no" then?

It's generally considered the measure of an open mind to be able to change a point of view in the face of evidence. So, frankly, yes, if you want to assert that your POV has so much weight that you feel ok labeling other people's views as "intellectually lazy", then you should learn how to bring some evidence to the table.

Back on topic now: See the post above to see where filters might be useful with FM. There's a little challenge there that if you're as good with FM as you say, shouldn't be any problem at all for a genius like you, no?

Since I've now shown you how to use FM8, you should be able to get right on with it.

To recap your some of your position from just a few pages ago:

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.)

LOL! They're all there. You must have missed that part of the class.

Yeah, you don't even know what I'm talking about. So, find a picture of the actual DX7 membrane, compare it with FM8 and take a few seconds with that.

I assume now that you agree that it's been confirmed here that, in fact, it was you who didn't know what you were talking about? That you had a very naive, and frankly, quaint, wait, what was your word, "precious", understanding of FM in the DX7?

Notice something here though. Until you were educated, you IMAGINED your understanding of FM to be greater than it actually was. That is, your lower level of understanding seemed to feed your confidence beyond that which was appropriate and, consequently, you overestimated your ability. You were so sure that you were correct that you continued your arrogance until .jon confirmed that I was correct about the DX7 algorithms and that you were confused. Isn't that pretty much what the Dunning Kruger effect is all about? I mean, you seem to want people to think that you're the expert here on that, right? I'm pretty sure though that you aren't a psychologist though, right?

Here's where you thought, despite your lack of experience and knowledge, that your POV on FM was worthy enough to label other people as "lazy"

Never once did I think 'this would be better with a filter'. I don't think there was really anyone that thought in terms of digital vs analog at that time. I think 'it would have been so much more useful with analog filters' is ignorant and comfort-zone laziness, intellectually. Rather than explore The Thing In Itself, as a discipline.

Of course you didn't think that, you had a very limited understanding of FM that you hadn't thought to update. It's so limited that you don't even know how to use a ten year old instrument with a sorely outdated filter. I would politely suggest that since you, hopefully, now recognize your own limitations here, that you perhaps refrain from insulting others in defense of your poorly thought out ideas in matters where you aren't really all that knowledgeable.

I don't think that's too much to ask, but, try not to let Dunning Kruger get in the way.