Re: [AH] DX7 Vs...

From Kenny Balys
Sent Fri, Sep 28th 2018, 20:14

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
>