The Fight for FM

[living sounds]

I haven't heard anyone actually do it.

I did, for 1 of your presets. But it took way too much time - it's pretty hard to copy a patch in anything.
Try to copy a DX7 sound in a DX7 itself, you'll see it will take you hours, if you manage to. And that obviously won't prove that a DX7 cannot do what a DX7 does.

Seriously, what's in your audio files are very typical FM, you'll get them from any synth. We all heard that kind of thing for years in games 20 years ago, and there wasn't anything mystical in those crap adlib soundcards.

Well, all you did was a single note. That's clearly not enough to compare anything in any meaningful way.

I've just listened to the file you posted today, and that sound is vastly different to the one I posted.

I sure think it isn't easy to copy it - I never bother with programming FM myself, there are zillions of presets online for the DX7. But if you really want to do an accurate emulation of the DX7 as a software engineer you'd probably have to get into it very deeply. So far, nobody has suceeded.

And I don't think there's anything mystical about it. But there sure is something wrong with the way the FM7 generates the sound, it sounds blurry, smeared, undefined, unpleasantly aggressive accross the board, no matter which sound you play.

[TristezaOrange]

Mobius strip.

[tony tony chopper]

That's clearly not enough to compare anything in any meaningful way.

Even if it wasn't, that would already discard any debate abour sound color or whatever. It would then only be a difference in keyboard mapping features, no?

and that sound is vastly different

It surely is, I haven't worked on it, I got it translated (with wrong envelope times as I said).

But if you really want to do an accurate emulation of the DX7 as a software engineer you'd probably have to get into it very deeply. So far, nobody has suceeded.

That's another debate. If your point is that no one has managed to do a DX7 emulator that requires no user input, I believe you. The few docs I found about it sucked and the only thing that was clearly detailed were how algo's & levels were encoded. Even the fact there are several different formats for those sysex files, sucks. What's hard when emulating old stuff is to dig up details about it.

it sounds blurry, smeared, undefined, unpleasantly aggressive accross the board

really, those terms lead nowhere. What would 'unpleasantly agressive accross the board' even mean?

[living sounds]

What would 'unpleasantly agressive accross the board' even mean?

It means there is a harshness in the high end. VOPM and the TX7 don't have this problem with any sound. You probably need good converters and monitoring to detect it easily, but it builds up in mixes and gets to the surface more with processing.

[tony tony chopper]

It means there is a harshness in the high end

still doesn't mean anything



if you really want to know where the difference is, you will have to export/import/compare the most basic bits. Disable envelopes as much as they can be, disable kb mapping, and you'll be able to compare operators & algorithms (& you'll see the results are exactly the same). Then compare envelopes, etc.

[DrWashington]

I'll say it again: what are you trying to prove?

The fact is (again), FM is a pretty simple algo and 2 FM synths shouldn't sound different, as long as they cover the same features. Considering it's pretty easy to cover the features of chips of the 80's, what I was claiming is that today's synths can do the same as the more limited ones, and only add features.

So you can come & claim that they sound better, use the usual bullcrap adjectives to descrive their sound, it's still a simple algo behind and YOU should have to prove your point that today's better FM synths can't match those old things.
But you don't, and more, you don't even wanna share any good-sounding FM patch, because we're not worth it I guess. Someone did, I replicated it in another synth, and you don't seem to be happy with that. You also look like a hyperactive guy who writes novels about things that aren't any related to the subject.

I still think you're missing what I'm trying to say. The dynamics of synth are more what I'm interested in. The limitations of a synth, i.e., the 'parameters', determine much of how it 'sounds' in a useful context.

I don't really use presets so much, other than as 'markers'. I tend to make small changes constantly. So, comparing presets doesn't make much sense to me in general, as I think of a synth as a dynamic instrument, rather than a static one. This is why I don't own any ROMplers. They bore me. That's all.

[DrWashington]

What would 'unpleasantly agressive accross the board' even mean?

It means there is a harshness in the high end. VOPM and the TX7 don't have this problem with any sound. You probably need good converters and monitoring to detect it easily, but it builds up in mixes and gets to the surface more with processing.

VOPM thru RME & HR824s sounds really nice. The internal math is probably pretty hi-res, and the fact that its using good DACs doesn't hurt at all. You really ought to try programming the hell out it. Like I said, when I d/l-ed it, there were 0 presets, all init. I thought that was normal. I got to tweakin', and WOW! It's really impressive.

FM8 in hi-res mode sounds a bit better than FM7, but it still just doesn't have that character.

"FM is a pretty simple algorithm"...

Sure, but how the processing is done, i.e., resolution, shortcut-taking, etc., can all affect the output.

I'm really tired of this theory v. practice debate. I know what my ears are telling me, and I've been programming synths for a while. I know what I like.

[DrWashington]

It means there is a harshness in the high end

still doesn't mean anything



if you really want to know where the difference is, you will have to export/import/compare the most basic bits. Disable envelopes as much as they can be, disable kb mapping, and you'll be able to compare operators & algorithms (& you'll see the results are exactly the same). Then compare envelopes, etc.

Man, give it a rest! Good grief!

[Liquidclear]

I finally checked out VOPM due to this thread, and I have to say that I'm impressed. I love the general sound of it and it fits in my mixes musically and easily.

Let's hope development of VOPM continues.

[mhemnarch]

And I don't think there's anything mystical about it. But there sure is something wrong with the way the FM7 generates the sound, it sounds blurry, smeared, undefined, unpleasantly aggressive accross the board, no matter which sound you play.

You're contradicting yourself. Blurry and smeared are terms that refer to a synth lacking in high end; aggressive refers to excessive high end. You can't have it both ways.

[tony tony chopper]

I'm really tired of this theory v. practice debate. I know what my ears are telling me,

just don't expect others to trust what your ears are telling you.

Sure, but how the processing is done, i.e., resolution, shortcut-taking, etc., can all affect the output.

raise your hand if you've already coded an FM synth.

[tony tony chopper]

You're contradicting yourself

he's not - those terms have absolutely no meaning, or rather, all meanings.

[living sounds]

You're contradicting yourself. Blurry and smeared are terms that refer to a synth lacking in high end; aggressive refers to excessive high end. You can't have it both ways.

No, blurry and smeared refers to the dynamics. The transients are smeared. Sounds like jitter, you get harshness as well as losing focus/definition. It's no good to explain this, you need to hear it.

[DrWashington]

It's no good to explain this, you need to hear it.

EXACTLY! Thank you. He also needs to USE VOPM for a while, as in play with it, to understand. It's no good to go through a few presets, IMO. That won't tell you much. Getting a feel for the limits of the synth is what will 'explain' it to your brain.

[ew]

ew