From skkatter Sent Fri, Sep 28th 2018, 21:07
From skkatter Sent Fri, Sep 28th 2018, 21:07
Gonna have to give a shout out to the FS1R, terrible interface but once you get an editor and put a bit of time in it sounds great. A lot cleaner than the other ones I think but can still sound a bit rough. This track is 100% FS1R (with some additional reverb and delay from Ableton): https://clyp.it/3mub5dh0 -Stephen On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 21:16, Kenny Balys <xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: > > > No, you cannot get the extra range out of the DX7 by turning off the > extra operators. They seem to always be getting their fair share of the > bandwidth whether on or off. > > If you can find a DX9 for cheap grab one. They don't seem to be popular > so they are likely cheap. The key action is no where near as nice as > a DX7 and there are only 20 patch memories. > > Still, the difference between a DX7 and a DX9 on 4-op sounds is quite > subtle. > > > > On 28.09.18 20:05 , Jason Proctor wrote: > > can you simulate this by turning off operators on the DX7, or does it just not > > work like that? > > > > J > > (DX7 owner since 1986, and still my favourite synth keyboard action) > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 1:04 PM, Kenny Balys <xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx > > <mailto:xxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx>> wrote: > > > > > > The 4-op DX9 has a little more crunch than the 6-op DX7. > > > > Each operator gets more of the bandwidth. > > > > I have spent some time trying to get subtle crazy stuff in the > > DX9 to happen on a DX7 and its just not possible. For the most > > part, the extra two operators on a DX7 seem to be used to > > add a "Tchick" or "Pffffaaaa" on the attack of a sound. > > > > Based on experiments I will always take the 4-op DX9 over a DX7. > > > > The DX100 and the DX21 series of 4-ops had a mushy sound that > > did not stand against the DX9 in my opinion. > > > > > > > > On 28.09.18 19:30 , Seth Elgart wrote: > > > > It's not necessarily any secret sauce but the DX7 was more flexible than the > > TX81Z/v50. The DX7 has 6 operators vs the 81Z having only 4 operators, > > although > > to be fair there were other waveforms besides sine waves on the 4-op synths. > > Also, the DX7 has more algorithms as well although I don't recall the > > relative > > numbers of them for each. Six operators means you can have an algorithm with > > three stacks of two on a DX7, for example, and so have three sound > > construction > > kits in a sense. That's a distinct advantage over the 4-op synths which > > would > > only give you the possibility of two 2-operator stacks. Or as another > > example if > > you're "faking" additive synthesis you'd have six partials in the "straight > > line" algorithm on a DX7 vs four on an 81Z. Another advantage of the DX7 > > is that > > it had more buttons than the 4-op models. Not necessarily easier to > > program but > > at least there were more parameters accessible without menus. > > > > So basically it's not that one's better than the other, although I think I'd > > give the 6-op synths a bit of a nod over the 4-op ones just for a bit more > > flexibility. Note though that the later 4-operator synths were much less > > expensive than the original 6-op ones as they basically have everything > > combined > > on a single FM chip vs the DX7 which had different chips for different > > functions. > > > > Seth > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:58 PM justin reed <xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxx.xxx > > <mailto:xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxx.xxx> > > <mailto:xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxx.xxx <mailto:xxxxxx.xxxx@xxxxx.xxx>>> wrote: > > > > I have always been curious if there is some secret sauce to the dx7 > > that > > makes it superior tp the later Yamaha FMs... > > > > it was my understanding that later models only expanded on the > > functionality > > of the first flagship with new technologies and better audio...is > > that wrong? > > > > are there functions possible with a dx7 that are not possible on a > > tx817 or > > v50 etc... > > > > genuinely curious question from an admitted FM dummy > > > > best > > jr > >