The Fight for FM

[Aroused by JarJar]

@ dan_s:

To me, your example doesn't sound "orange", it sounds like your typical low-quality (like, oversampling and hope for the best rather than running envelopes at audio rate and so on because users will whine about CPU usage kind of thing) software "FM" rammed through a bit-crusher.

the orange part was a joke. It is a hardware dx.

point being, it was recorded through a $30 mixer.

Good point- pretty amazing degradation there, hahaha! Recently I did a "noise" show with my friend doing feedback and self-noise and shit through a little Behringer mixing board and I doubt we ever got more lo-fi than that, even trying.

I just got a 150 dollar USB audio interface (Phonic) for travel and live interactive stuff and I'm very impressed with the cleanliness of the sound. Not to mention a Samson C01 mike for a hundred dollars or so. When I think back on the days of when stuff like a Mackie mixing board and an ADAT was what the budget allowed...

[dan_s]

the orange part was a joke. It is a hardware dx.

point being, it was recorded through a $30 mixer.

Good point- pretty amazing degradation there, hahaha! Recently I did a "noise" show with my friend doing feedback and self-noise and shit through a little Behringer mixing board and I doubt we ever got more lo-fi than that, even trying.

I just got a 150 dollar USB audio interface (Phonic) for travel and live interactive stuff and I'm very impressed with the cleanliness of the sound. Not to mention a Samson C01 mike for a hundred dollars or so. When I think back on the days of when stuff like a Mackie mixing board and an ADAT was what the budget allowed...

i have a behringer mixer. the preamps are atrocious. though, i dont really mind the sound. i do need to find a decent preamp though for when that sound is not wanted :] i am afraid to abuse my behringer because i dont want to ruin my monitors. it appears to have the potential to be fatal to human and machine..

the example was from a dx200. which, as i understand it, is the dx7 engine. but are the envelopes and other circuits the same? i have no clue. also, it has a multimode filter, which i had fully open, but again, the sound is still passing through the filter. so the example is useless. it is hardware though. ;] as for the degradation, all the -awesome- sounding distortion and amp model stuff was off, but. its easy to make fm sound distorted and nasty though, its in its nature.

[Aroused by JarJar]

i have a behringer mixer. the preamps are atrocious. though, i dont really mind the sound. i do need to find a decent preamp though for when that sound is not wanted :] i am afraid to abuse my behringer because i dont want to ruin my monitors. it appears to have the potential to be fatal to human and machine..

Well my friend abuses his beyond belief and it keeps going, I'm suprised it's not fried to bits.

the example was from a dx200. which, as i understand it, is the dx7 engine. but are the envelopes and other circuits the same? i have no clue. also, it has a multimode filter, which i had fully open, but again, the sound is still passing through the filter. so the example is useless. it is hardware though. ;] as for the degradation, all the -awesome- sounding distortion and amp model stuff was off, but. its easy to make fm sound distorted and nasty though, its in its nature.

Dunno, I thing the dx200 does have the same engine plus many extras. Anyway it is definitely a hardware Yamaha, hahaha! Do you like the sound when it is recorded cleanly?

[dan_s]

the example was from a dx200. which, as i understand it, is the dx7 engine. but are the envelopes and other circuits the same? i have no clue. also, it has a multimode filter, which i had fully open, but again, the sound is still passing through the filter. so the example is useless. it is hardware though. ;] as for the degradation, all the -awesome- sounding distortion and amp model stuff was off, but. its easy to make fm sound distorted and nasty though, its in its nature.

Dunno, I thing the dx200 does have the same engine plus many extras. Anyway it is definitely a hardware Yamaha, hahaha! Do you like the sound when it is recorded cleanly?[/quote]


I like it most because of the distortion and amp effects, so I can't say I've heard it much clean. It does sound beautiful though, and even with all its stupid shortcomings, is able to create a wide range of sounds. I never directly tried to compare it to any softsynths, theres no point because of the way the two are going to be recorded in. with that though, to my untrained ears, they both sound too close to tell.

[vurt]

I have always wondered if their are any accessible academic discussions about how people hear this kind of thing.

Yes, it's called synesthesia and it's an interesting medical condition that's apparently very frequently found with electronic musicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

[edit] or more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesi ... ynesthesia

the funny thing about it is, not everyone sees the same colours for the same tones.

[Aroused by JarJar]

I have always wondered if their are any accessible academic discussions about how people hear this kind of thing.

Yes, it's called synesthesia and it's an interesting medical condition that's apparently very frequently found with electronic musicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

[edit] or more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesi ... ynesthesia

the funny thing about it is, not everyone sees the same colours for the same tones.

Obviously not. That doesn't mean that the actual physical tone color (aka timbre or spectrum) simply doesn't exist, and it doesn't mean the people do not share a huge amount of similar sensations.

Anyway, to continue with examples of "FM" (implemented via phase modulation in this case):

http://dl.kibla.org/dl.php?filename=DownSweep1.WAV

6-op, very simple algorithm. To me this doesn't sound "weak" at all, even though it's softened a bit with a small amount of convolution reverb. There's a discrete analog monosynth bass tone in there because it fits in the piece and I wanted to put the smooth "bloom" of the FM sound with the filter "shuzhhhh" of the analog together and hear if the FM holds its own, which IMO it does quite well.

[knot0fvipers]

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 think featureitis is a bit unfair.
Say you have a basic FM synth idea...how that idea will evolve will be quite different on a modern quad core machine than how it will evolve on the dsp chip used by yamaha in say 1990...There are things you can do that simply are not possible on that dsp chip. At the same time though, the limitations of the dsp chip forced the programmers to explore finer details so that the synth didn't sound exacly like the previous generation synth.
I think a big point in this whole discussion is that synths don't start out as what they end up as in someone's head. Access didn't build the virus A with the TI in mind....the synth idea evolves as the programmers find limitations and breakthroughs.
As far as basic sound qualities, even the FS1R has a much different base sound quality than a DX7...same company in hardware...the end result though evolved to a much different basic sound quality.
Software vs Hardware though I do think that DAC emultion is the big unexplored territory. Take the Z1 vs Prophecy...a big "feature" of the Z1 was that it upgraded the "shitty" dacs of the Prophecy...the basic algorithms for both were taken from the original OASYS..so basically the Prophecy was OASYS algorithms through a "bad" DAC and Z1 was OASYS algorithms through a "better" DAC...the end result? Almost everyone agrees that the Prophecy sounds "better" than the Z1...the DAC is what gives the Prophecy its signature sound...not the algorithms.
Then even further along these lines the OASYS PCI doesn't sound like either the Z1 or Prophecy! Same algorithms, different DAC yet again.
I would bet the farm that a big reason some people say that software synths all sound the same is that because hardware synths all have basically an effect you can't turn off at the very end of the chain via the DAC that are mostly different. With software synths, that "effect" is exactly the same for every synth because its all going through the same DAC on your soundcard, plus I would imagine most modern sound card DACs are "better" in the sense that they are all far more transparent as far as coloring the sound compared to something from 1990.

[DrWashington]

I REMEMBER all those night going to clubs in the late '90s, how GOOD everything sounded. I saw Markus Shulz in Seattle a couple years ago, and he was spinning all mp3s that he had burned to CD, presumably. It sounded awful.

It has rather to do with the room, the audio systems and whatever other factors rather than the MP3-compression (especially if the DJ more than 128kbps).

Anyways, I know what you're talking about with different sounding FM synths. I remember, here was a thread once, where one guy showed some examples of the same sound done with different FM synths. One clearly sounded better. I don't know why, but it was like that.

*sigh*

Okay, here is the thing. I've heard both vinyl and mp3-to-CD-R being spun in the exact same club. I'm sorry, but there is a difference. A big difference. There just is. Vinyl attenuates the HF spectrum in a random-within-limits way that is very pleasing to the ears (mine, at least). That Markus Schulz show was pretty pathetic, all things considered. The audio quality was really awful, enough so that it stuck in my mind.

I've seen Sasha, Danny Howells and Sander Kleinenberg among many others spinning vinyl live, and, please believe me, there is a big, big difference. Recently, I saw Sander in Seattle spinning CD-R, and it was night and day. The magic was gone. I'm sorry, but I have to call this like I heard it. It wasn't even close to before.

That said, I TRULY BELIEVE that it's possible to recreate the vinyl sound w/ at least 320k mp3s and some clever processing. Trouble is, there's no standard signal chain that DJs know about or care to know about, and hardly anyone even bothers. I bother, at home, and it sounds really, really good. Pleasant, easy on the ears, even when really loud... but nobody is going to go to the trouble to use all the plugins I use to get the effect.

Vinyl still has its place, then...

[DrWashington]

Man, all this talk about FM makes me want to rage through different OPL chips and making sounds with them....if only one knew how.

Do it! Do it! For the luvagawd, DO IT!

FM is a beautiful thing, when done right... I'm listening to a loop I did with VOPM (and other synths & drums of course) right now, and I just floored at the purity and grace coming from my Mackies to mine ears.

Seriously, why won't Dude finish VOPM? Can we petition?

[DrWashington]

I suppose we can conclude that the magic DX7 sounds incredibly more fat, rich, metallic, better on the low/mid/high end, etc than any software FM synth, and that no one here is any INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHY.

I'd like to know why. But I don't have the means to find it out. If I were a software engineer I'd start digging through the open source code of VOPM. This blurryness is present in a whole lot of plugins in general and there's got to be a reason for it. I won't open the can of worms of integer vs. float here again, because I've taken enough heat over it in other threads without any productive outcome. If you want to know about these differences, try and start to find them out. Look at what happens in VOPM. But since you basically deny they exist ("it's because of patch programming skills") and claim to not hear any differences between converters...
One of the reasons why a lot of the ancient digital stuff still sounds much better than plugins might be because the engineers back then actually listened to what the musicians had to say about sonic preferences - instead of ridiculing them.

Yes, yes... that's the thing. It's true. This little VOPM instrument is doing it right. It's lame in that you can't MIDI learn it or do other cool things with it, but sonically, it runs circles around FM7/8 and every other VST I've tried.

I'm really interested to know what we, the KVR-addicted might do to petition one of these companies to contact "Sam", get the source code, and FINISH the damn thing. I'm continually amazed at how rich this little plugin sounds, VST or no. This is why I love GForce, for instance. Richness. Digital, sure, but rich? YES! Richer than NI? Yes. Indisputably.

[DrWashington]

Replicating a VOPM preset won't address the issue at all, but a completely different sound that has that firm, "real" quality to it would address the issue precisely.

But if someone makes a sound with VOPM (or any reference synth x people think is awesome) that people agree has that "real" quality (whatever it is), and the replication of that sound in another synth sounds the same and has the same quality, doesn't that prove the point that it isn't about the intrinsic quality of the synth but about being able to program a synth? Or am I missing something?

That is, there's a reference sound that has qualities that some people are after, and some kind of recipe to get that sound programmed - and if the end result is like the reference sound, mission accomplished? And if it the end result doesn't sound the same, it proves that there's something in the signature sound that the reference synth has that the other one doesn't.

The problem with the "completely different sound" test is that there is no reference that people agree on. Someone can say "well, this sounds good" and someone "well, this doesn't have the quality I'm after". But if at first some people agree that some reference sound is what they're after, replicating it with another synth proves the point that the same sound is achievable on that synth.

OK, I just wanna make a point here. This is in regards to synth design in general. Now, I consider myself a pretty good programmer. I've been doing it a while. I think of synths, esp. FM or additive, as having all kinds of LIMITS, "across this line you do not... also dude, Chinaman is not the correct nomenclature..."

You know? I mean, so many synths out there, you get to tweaking, and all of a sudden, you find your limits. Across these lines, everything sounds like ass. You don't wanna do that. And, with many, many parameters, its really easy to cross the line. Pretty much all synths have these limits. But, my point is this:

With something like VOPM, you can cross these lines, and the sound, though chaotic, still sounds blurbly and rich, not whispy and crappy. Whispy digital flakes-o'-nonsense never did anybody any good. That's all I'm sayin'.

[pdxindy]

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 think featureitis is a bit unfair.
Say you have a basic FM synth idea...how that idea will evolve will be quite different on a modern quad core machine than how it will evolve on the dsp chip used by yamaha in say 1990...There are things you can do that simply are not possible on that dsp chip. At the same time though, the limitations of the dsp chip forced the programmers to explore finer details so that the synth didn't sound exacly like the previous generation synth.
I think a big point in this whole discussion is that synths don't start out as what they end up as in someone's head. Access didn't build the virus A with the TI in mind....the synth idea evolves as the programmers find limitations and breakthroughs.

Well, I am not singling out a company as such, but that featuritis is the mode of the day.

Hell, Camel Audio just released Alchemy, and their forum is full with user requests for more features. That thing is so deep and nobody has explored more than 10-20% of what is there. I used to get caught in that, but not for long and not anymore.

In the days of hardware only, there were not even software updates so the instrument you bought is what you used and the idea was not even in the mind that it was going to be improved. Now with software, users are asking for new features within days. That whole 'I'm never satisfied' mindset permeates the entire industry and yet we have many instruments with capacities unimagined at that time.

Well, it is the turn for sound quality and especially musicality to come forward.

[DrWashington]

This thread has lost it.

Can I - as a person that has never used hardware synths in any *real* capacity (other than messing around with some of them occasionally) - ask if it really matters that much what the differences are in the context of a mix? Having heard the sound demos for the Transient Attacks sound-pack on NI's site, I would be glad to own an FM8. Really, what exactly is wrong with it?

Threads like this blow my mind.

OK, I'd be really happy to answer this one. I've been using FM7 for a long time I like it. A lot. I don't LOVE it though. I LOVE VOPM. Why? VOPM sounds really, really good. FM7 sounds good. FM8 sounds quite good (in hi-res mode). FM8 does not have operator copy-paste. FM7 does, and I'm used to that. FM8 is thus harder to program than FM7.

VOPM isn't that easy to program, but gets easier the more you mess with it. It's not very flexible. But the sound? It's to die for. I'm serious. This little thing is a gem. I've been running it through the Uhbik plugins, esp. "A", and I'm in love.

FM8 is only good if you've never used FM7. If you have, you'll be almost too pissed to use it. It did away with a crucial feature. THAT's what's wrong with it.

[DrWashington]

Wow I'm trying VOPM, I don't get anything of those confusing settings. Can't manage to make it output just a sine. I also get stuck tones, or timbre randomization while I'm not seeing something that looks like randomness.
I guess someone will have to help. And also post a good preset bank because it doesn't come with any (well, 5 presets that suck).

Edit: ok the blank patches seem to output a normal (little noisy) sine.

There's a "manual" posted in one of these forums. Google it. This synth is worth your time. Don't dismiss it until you get a rich, complex sound that doesn't suck. What's the point of going minimal? This synth does complex very, very well, and keeps it all together. FM8 can't claim that, sadly.

VOPM = minimal digital fluff in the high end.

VOPM =

[DrWashington]

No, no, no! That's rigging the whole test from the start! The fact that the "sine" in a particular synth is or isn't actually a sine is part of the character of the synth. And those kinds of distortions can NOT be replicated afterward, especially in extremely non-linear "butterfly wings creating a storm" world of FM.

so what are you talking about? Is this a quest for good FM or for good emulation of the flaws of an ancient FM synth?

You should read what I write before commenting, I think.

It is NOT about emulating ANYTHING, the main thing is about making a good, "real" solid musically useful sound. Who other than a nut with some ax to grind would disagree with that beats me.

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.

Yes, I'd say you're completely right on. This is exactly what I'm after. The YM2612 is what I unwittingly grew up with (b. 1980). I LOVE the sound of this chip. VOPM does a good job of reproducing it, but minus a lot of features, like portaments, etc.

I'm sorry, but FM8 just doesn't do it for me. I have programmed the hell out of FM7, and though while good, it just doesn't have that "bite" I get from VOPM, even at extreme settings.

Quality sound is NOT a flaw. You're right. I'm getting very tired of people who spend more time on KVR than programming synths getting all huffy when people are innocently reporting what they hear. What a travesty.