Overestimated synths?

[jancivil]

really though i was reading one of these threads about a week ago and logged in one day and found a couple pages of depthy meaningful posts about making music. i was really busy making something that day so i didn't read beyond skimming. i was amazed. it's like i had this wonderful dream then i woke up to "[prime audio industry meme] yes or no"?

That is like a dream. You sure it wasn't? Links or it never happened.

This isn't a music forum, it's a plugins forum, isn't it?

[jancivil]

For me, it is. If you had that experience, you would get it. I would suggest you look at
fm theory and applications
algorithm by algorithm and actually compare it with the GUI of FM8, actually thinking about it.

But that seems too much to ask, because you're so sure you know better.

You're talking about the graphic visualisations of the 32 hardwired operator arrangements printed on the plastic, without actually understanding what they represent. All of the original DX7 modulator/carrier configurations or ("algorithms" as Yamaha opted to call them) can indeed be made with the FM7/8 matrix, and quite a few more, so he really does know better.

The word is algorithms, not really an optional special new Yamaha term.

I know exactly what they represent having worked extensively with the DX7. The Yamaha algorithm is the visualization. Study it - which is why I provided the materials - and this is perfectly clear. But [both of] you know better about what my thought is (and you arrogant enough to tell us what I know or don't) despite the failure to read or think about it for a second. Typical.

I find your attitude uncomfortable, why do you prefer to act hostile instead of trying to learn something out of this trainwreck? We are not discussing opinions, but rather simple facts.

Well, you came in with another little drive-by and rather than try to understand my POV stated I had no understanding of Yahama FM! Your hypocrisy and projection then is really second-to-none.

It's my only experience with you, a drive-by where you insult people to no good in a thread whatsoever.
EG: People that want a triad spelled with actual thirds are "retarded" (<-this is a banned word? Let us all know! It's what he said FFS), as though you have a proper modern if not postmodern understanding [superior to the simple basic fact] of the issue, in a whole string of posturing garbage which you must deludedly believe makes you seem really superior. I'll never be comfortable with that, nor should any person with their own f**king AGENCY! FFS. Unbelievable. That takes the cake. Are you just totally lacking in self-awareness or suffering from some condition where your memory of what you just did is erased?

Again, I imagined that the presets in FM Matrix in FM8 are what they are, I just don't care to work with that interface. You have nothing to teach me whatsoever.
Me having no understanding of the Chowning/Yahama algorithms because I want the stacks to be stacks is not a fact! The entirety of the thread is about opinions, if you would just read the topic title. You're too cool to read a thread, it's all just a chance to do that shit, isn't it.

[jancivil]

i feel like, i should help my friends realise what a farce participating in this thread is because of all the baiting and to get back to their other things of saving the entire species so they can help in something meaningful.

I'm under no illusions about a thread that is about 'estimating' products. Within it I argued for an idea which was disrespected to no good point.

Additionally I'm under no illusion that the species is salvageable. The human footprint is too heavy.

[jancivil]

The mathematical principle, the core algo, is the same in all 32 DX7 operator configurations. Only thing that changes is the arrangement of operators. They couldn't figure out or did not have the technological means to implement a freely editable matrix like in FM7/8/Octopus/etc, so they provided those 32 preset configurations which have a decent amount of variety to cover a lot of sonic ground. In FM7/8 you can arrange the operators arbitrarily with 1-6 carriers, and any of them can feed back into itself. I've had too many jallushots and champagnes to count the exact number, but it's even bigger than your ego anyway.

There is no 'core algo', that's silly. #32 is all carriers, for starters. There are 32 algorithms there, period.

You seem unclear on the meaning of the word 'describe' here in the first place. The graphic layout describes the algorithms.: I'd think that'd be clear enough.

These 32 are your most essential so they're the first 32. But no! They would have done the FM8 if they could, sez you. But wait, you straight contradict yourself, they're there to provide maximal variety and "a lot of sonic ground".

Stop pretending to lecture, it's really just foolish. So you're drunk? Yeah, great move.

[ghettosynth]

The mathematical principle, the core algo, is the same in all 32 DX7 operator configurations. Only thing that changes is the arrangement of operators. They couldn't figure out or did not have the technological means to implement a freely editable matrix like in FM7/8/Octopus/etc, so they provided those 32 preset configurations which have a decent amount of variety to cover a lot of sonic ground. In FM7/8 you can arrange the operators arbitrarily with 1-6 carriers, and any of them can feed back into itself. I've had too many jallushots and champagnes to count the exact number, but it's even bigger than your ego anyway.

There is no 'core algo', that's silly. #32 is all carriers, for starters. There are 32 algorithms there, period.

You seem unclear on the meaning of the word 'describe' here in the first place. The graphic layout describes the algorithms.: I'd think that'd be clear enough.

These 32 are your most essential so they're the first 32. But no! They would have done the FM8 if they could, sez you. But wait, you straight contradict yourself, they're there to provide maximal variety and "a lot of sonic ground".

Stop pretending to lecture, it's really just foolish. So you're drunk? Yeah, great move.

You seem unclear as to what the word "algorithm" means. Jon tried to explain it to you. The point is that Yamaha is using the word in a non-standard way. BTW: This is not, AFAIK, John Chowning's word to describe a configuration, in fact, in his original paper he doesn't use the word. He uses "circuits" to describe the schematics presented.

In any case, even if Chowning did use the word that way, it's non-standard. This isn't uncommon when you are borrowing terms from outside your field. Jon's point is that there is an algorithm for creating FM in the DX7 and it involves far more than the operator configuration. The images do not represent "algorithms" unless you accept Yamaha's product derived definition of the word.

In fact, I think that the most appropriate word that I've seen is in his book with Bristow and it's "form." Form is used to describe particular substructures of a configuration, however, it also makes more sense to use that word for the overall structure.

Algorithm is just a nice sounding word that I suppose Yamaha preferred over others. I don't pretend to know all of their reasons, but, I suspect part of it was marketing. Selling the new "digital" world was a big deal in the early 80s and if you could borrow some terminology from computer science, then win.

It's not that much different than the "turbo" button on the front of early PCs. There wasn't really a turbo anywhere to be found, it was just a popular auto feature in the 80s that people associated with fast.

With respect to the original algorithms and their sonic ground, again, you miss the point. They are not all that can be done with six operators, but Yamaha had to compromise in order to easily fit the instrument within the hardware of the day. Part of those constraints were the common LCD displays of the time. Limiting the complexity of the configuration or "algorithm" meant that a simple integer index could be used to specify the configuration. In theory, there is no reason to limit the configurations and, in fact, Chowning's environment presented no such limitations, per se.

This is another way in which the DX7 was overestimated. Flexibility in the configuration is important for coverage over a wider sonic palette. The DX7 covers a lot of ground, but 32 is merely a convenient number for organization in embedded systems, it is by no means definitive with respect to FM. In other words, it is a compromise.

In any case, your original claim that all of the "algorithms" are not in FM8 is completely incorrect. They are all there, and more, and they are all available as presets.

[Rappo Clappo]

"FM, particularly as envisioned by Chowning and implemented in the DX series was overestimated, that is the subject of this thread."

Well, I just noticed this thread is in the section dedicated to software.

I did not know that! So does this apply to all the threads regarding software vs hardware and all the posts regarding comparison particularly with say the Minimoog?

I didn't know our hijack got to be 'the subject of the thread'; it was for a bit.

There's one section dedicated to hardware (everything) and two dedicated to software: instruments and effects.

There's no section regarded to drums only. Which I find pretty weird but that's just me, I guess.

[Armagibbon]

It's not that much different than the "turbo" button on the front of early PCs. There wasn't really a turbo anywhere to be found, it was just a popular auto feature in the 80s that people associated with fast.

What's the legendary turbo button got to do with this?
Yeah, it's a misnomer, but it did worse than just that, since it limited the processor's operating frequency for compatibility with old software. That's like the total opposite of "go fast" that you'd think a turbo would do.

Now algorithm, circuit, form and all that and whatever are all related to sequences of procedures that define a function, but cmon they're not like freaking opposites here. They're practically synonyms. Am I missing the point here?

Nevermind, f*ck my pedantry.

[aumordia]

lollin' hard at the very idea of furiously defending the glory of the DX7 while not understanding how FM synthesis works

On a different note: additive synthesis -- is it overestimated or not? My feeling is yes, assuming you're not SeamlessR.

[ghettosynth]

It's not that much different than the "turbo" button on the front of early PCs. There wasn't really a turbo anywhere to be found, it was just a popular auto feature in the 80s that people associated with fast.

What's the legendary turbo button got to do with this?
Yeah, it's a misnomer, but it did worse than just that, since it limited the processor's operating frequency for compatibility with old software. That's like the total opposite of "go fast" that you'd think a turbo would do.

Yes, when disengaged. When engaged, it enabled the higher clock setting, hence turbo. The button's purpose was to imply the faster speed mode. Nobody in the history of man thought that turbo implied the compatibility speed. Seriously, are you just looking for an argument? Perhaps you should heed Hink's advice and get back on topic. If the best thing that you have to contribute to a conversation is to debate an example that is really pretty f**king clear, then, perhaps you could find better things to do then post on KVR?

Now algorithm, circuit, form and all that and whatever are all related to sequences of procedures that define a function, but cmon they're not like freaking opposites here. They're practically synonyms. Am I missing the point here?

Nevermind, f*ck my pedantry.

Not agreeing with you at all that algorithm, circuit, and form are "practically synonyms." But yes, you are missing the context of the conversation which isn't really a debate over the validity of the word algorithm so much as it is a misunderstanding of its use in context.

Posts like yours are how topics get derailed. Nobody cares about the detail of the Turbo button, i.e., whether it' was an NO or NC switch. Clearly, the word is meant to imply the faster speed. Do you want people to know that you understand the most basic of engineering facts about early PCs?

Try saying something about synthesizers, that's the topic here.

[wagtunes]

Okay, I'm just going to come out and say it.

All those f**king pieces of crap analog synths that went out of tune every f**king 5 minutes, weighed 500 freaking pounds and became increasingly annoying as hell with every "Lucky Man" lead I, yet again, had to suffer through for who knows how many f**king years.

I didn't get the whole "I'm in love with my analog piece of shit" then and I don't get it now that we're freaking emulating the crap out of these things.

News flash. They were a novelty at first that got old real fast. It wasn't really until the late 80s, early 90s that synths truly became "interesting." Things like the Korg Wavestation. That was a synth.

I didn't get the whole analog thing then and I don't get it now and I think the Yamaha CS 80 itself was the most overrated pieces of garbage ever made. The thing sounded like a f**king dying accordion until you ran it through a shit ton of FX and processed the crap out of it. It was thin, lifeless and boring as hell and weighed more than my mom and dad put together.

Why anybody would want to go back to those days is beyond me.

[nineofkings]

lollin' hard at the very idea of furiously defending the glory of the DX7 while not understanding how FM synthesis works

On a different note: additive synthesis -- is it overestimated or not? My feeling is yes, assuming you're not SeamlessR.

Have you ever used Harmor and its resynthesis? If anything additive is underrated, IMO. That thing is magic.

[ghettosynth]

lollin' hard at the very idea of furiously defending the glory of the DX7 while not understanding how FM synthesis works

On a different note: additive synthesis -- is it overestimated or not? My feeling is yes, assuming you're not SeamlessR.

Have you ever used Harmor and its resynthesis? If anything additive is underrated, IMO. That thing is magic.

In terms of this thread though, I don't think that there's been much "overestimation" of any additive synths. Maybe the Kawai K5000 which didn't stay on the market for very long.

Other than elementary forms of additive synths, e.g., some FM "algorithms" and organs, there haven't been many hardware additive synths over the years. I still have a K3M which is "sort of" an additive/subtractive synthesizer, but not really special in that sense.

Re: Harmour, I haven't tried it, I'm not really an image line fan. Given how much I work with samples these days though, I probably should try it out.

[nineofkings]

Harmour

You're British, I assume?

[aumordia]

I'm an IL signature customer (and then some), so I have harmor. What I find is that it gives me access to a wide world of new sounds... that I don't care about. It's easier to get weirder results than with traditional subtractive synthesis, but harder to get musical sounds.

It does have a couple of neat tricks. Obviously, there's resynthesis. It's also quite good at bells and harmonically complex plucky sounds -- things that you might normally associate with sophisticated comb filtering. Not much else really.

[Rappo Clappo]

I am not sure which synth I like most. The Under- or the Overestimator. Seems there's nothing in between.