Overestimated synths?
- KVRian
- 736 posts since 29 Nov, 2015
"Overrated" is very much a personal taste thing. The DX7 interface is probably way to hard to use + the complexity of how phase modulation works and how to think when programming it and so forth. I can understand how one would think it's overrated if not fully devoting oneself to the techniques and theories involved, or simply not having a personal taste for that kind of sound. Having done some sounddesign on FM8 I'm amazed by how rich and "high resolution" some of these sounds can sound. To me it's the most powerful synthesis technique even though it can also sound incredibly shitty as well.
- KVRAF
- 1793 posts since 9 Apr, 2011
Yes. This. Idealism of "wow this could be the holy grail of realistic synthesis" compared with the result of every damn ballad using the same saccharine rhodes preset.ghettosynth wrote: None of that has anything to do with overestimated. The DX7 was unique in the early 80s, it's simply not today unless you're willing to program it. Previous poster is right, it's one of those synths for which the vast majority of users just used prestes and, really, exclusively used presets.
I think that there is a big difference between talking about a synth vs a product. Even in the 80s, the DX7 WAS overestimated as a synth. The belief that it could recreate any sound, in theory, simply didn't hold up in practice. It would have been a much better synth with analog filters, although, that would most likely have limited its success as a product.
"musician."
http://soundcloud.com/nine-of-kings
http://soundcloud.com/nine-of-kings
- KVRAF
- 40424 posts since 11 Aug, 2008 from clown world
Considering only five people in the world were able to program it, if people didn't like the stock presets nobody would have purchased it.
Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
- KVRAF
- 4023 posts since 13 Jun, 2014
<list your stupid gear here>
-
- Banned
- 12368 posts since 30 Apr, 2002 from i might peeramid
no wonder. 2017 and they still can't turn the bloody volume up enough for anyone to hear it. audio fail, audio fail.
christ i'd chew my nuts off for a species with a brain cell.. its like watching prototype AI bounce into walls, forever.
who says, here's a ten minute interview, i'll leave the audio at -40dB
i do realise the simple solution to this is to hack a windows audio interface that goes to 1000 instead of 1. but it would be faster if he just killed himself and got out of the way so someone else can have a go at civilisation that isn't a total fuckup.
christ i'd chew my nuts off for a species with a brain cell.. its like watching prototype AI bounce into walls, forever.
who says, here's a ten minute interview, i'll leave the audio at -40dB
i do realise the simple solution to this is to hack a windows audio interface that goes to 1000 instead of 1. but it would be faster if he just killed himself and got out of the way so someone else can have a go at civilisation that isn't a total fuckup.
you come and go, you come and go. amitabha neither a follower nor a leader be tagore "where roads are made i lose my way" where there is certainty, consideration is absent.
- KVRAF
- 1793 posts since 9 Apr, 2011
I'm sorry someone not knowing how to normalize an audio file leads you to believe humanity has failedxoxos wrote: i do realise the simple solution to this is to hack a windows audio interface that goes to 1000 instead of 1. but it would be faster if he just killed himself and got out of the way so someone else can have a go at civilisation that isn't a total fuckup.
"musician."
http://soundcloud.com/nine-of-kings
http://soundcloud.com/nine-of-kings
-
- Banned
- 12368 posts since 30 Apr, 2002 from i might peeramid
it's more the suppression of popular benefit and consideration, and the resulting popular indifference to destruction right in front of your faces, but the persistent sheer incompetence, yeah, is not uplifting.nineofkings wrote: I'm sorry someone not knowing how to normalize an audio file leads you to believe humanity has failed
that's the door to vault b, wealthiest temple on the globe. it's not from a fantasy game or hollywood movie or dramatic internet rant. that's this planet, right here.
you come and go, you come and go. amitabha neither a follower nor a leader be tagore "where roads are made i lose my way" where there is certainty, consideration is absent.
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 6992 posts since 28 Dec, 2015 from Atlantis Island
drama, baby, drama!
https://sonograyn.bandcamp.com/music Experimental Ambient
https://martinjuenke.bandcamp.com/music Alternative Instrumental
https://martinjuenke.bandcamp.com/music Alternative Instrumental
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I was programming DX7 extensively in '85-87. I was interested not so much in recreating a clarinet or something.
But, there is a technique to it and it's all tied in with the layout of the 32 algorithms. Gary Leuenberger taught a course in it at his Market St. Yamaha dealership. There's a book from back then on the theory, available on the 'net. There's a thread here where I linked to it and a discussion. I don't recall that book from the workshop. I do recall the principles, and such as what ratio gives the most 'clarinet-like' wave type. (3:1, modulator to carrier.)
But I was interested in getting new sounds out of it, and an EG per operator and the particular feedback loop on particular operators as laid out in the paradigm of the 32 algorithms was certainly breaking news to everyone.
Sure, few learned to program it. Who cares? That is a limitation of people who aren't interested. The potential of it vs all the sappy 'Tines' usage in pop ballads? Yeah, music is in itself overestimated because of Top 40 radio and all the wasted potential.
And 'it's no longer unique'? Because, what, FM7, FM8? No. Those do_not_have the 32 algorithms. (If you don't get that, well you don't get something, so what.)
Never once did I think 'this would be better with a filter'. I don't think there was really anyone that thought in terms of digital vs analog at that time. I think 'it would have been so much more useful with analog filters' is ignorant and comfort-zone laziness, intellectually. Rather than explore The Thing In Itself, as a discipline. It's pretty much 'this clarinet would have been a much better design with a trumpet mouthpiece' because you have the trumpet embouchure down.
But, there is a technique to it and it's all tied in with the layout of the 32 algorithms. Gary Leuenberger taught a course in it at his Market St. Yamaha dealership. There's a book from back then on the theory, available on the 'net. There's a thread here where I linked to it and a discussion. I don't recall that book from the workshop. I do recall the principles, and such as what ratio gives the most 'clarinet-like' wave type. (3:1, modulator to carrier.)
But I was interested in getting new sounds out of it, and an EG per operator and the particular feedback loop on particular operators as laid out in the paradigm of the 32 algorithms was certainly breaking news to everyone.
Sure, few learned to program it. Who cares? That is a limitation of people who aren't interested. The potential of it vs all the sappy 'Tines' usage in pop ballads? Yeah, music is in itself overestimated because of Top 40 radio and all the wasted potential.
And 'it's no longer unique'? Because, what, FM7, FM8? No. Those do_not_have the 32 algorithms. (If you don't get that, well you don't get something, so what.)
Never once did I think 'this would be better with a filter'. I don't think there was really anyone that thought in terms of digital vs analog at that time. I think 'it would have been so much more useful with analog filters' is ignorant and comfort-zone laziness, intellectually. Rather than explore The Thing In Itself, as a discipline. It's pretty much 'this clarinet would have been a much better design with a trumpet mouthpiece' because you have the trumpet embouchure down.
- KVRAF
- 3205 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from People's Republic of Minnesota
I just visualized the baddies from Doom I desperately trying to go through the wall to reach me on my 75MHz Pentium AST.xoxos wrote:christ i'd chew my nuts off for a species with a brain cell.. its like watching prototype AI bounce into walls, forever.
who says, here's a ten minute interview, i'll leave the audio at -40dB
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
So it is, in fact, unique. Except when you can't be arsed. Brilliant.ghettosynth wrote: The DX7 was unique in the early 80s, it's simply not today unless you're willing to program it.
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I bought one again in 2003 or '04. I think what for some is charming, somewhat lo-fi for today, was disappointing to me. Also the limit on velocity to 100. But, it's an extremely powerful synthesis method. I'm all about the 32 algos, so there is nothing I know of with the correct interface.
You can say Absynth is nothing much anymore because filters, they aren't this or another thing, but that's all subjective and just somebody's opinion. "Overestimated", "Underestimated", personal estimation doesn't so much matter, you do your thing and that's that.
You can say Absynth is nothing much anymore because filters, they aren't this or another thing, but that's all subjective and just somebody's opinion. "Overestimated", "Underestimated", personal estimation doesn't so much matter, you do your thing and that's that.
-
- KVRAF
- 15533 posts since 13 Oct, 2009
LOL! They're all there. You must have missed that part of the class.jancivil wrote:I was programming DX7 extensively in '85-87.
...
And 'it's no longer unique'? Because, what, FM7, FM8? No. Those do_not_have the 32 algorithms. (If you don't get that, well you don't get something, so what.)
Well, Yamaha did, that's why the FS1R has them. The technology for real time digital resonant filters just wasn't there in the early 80s so there was no practical way to incorporate analog filters while keeping the costs down. As soon as it was somewhat practical, Yamaha started incorporating filters.Never once did I think 'this would be better with a filter'.
Nonsense. There are several examples of production synths that used digital waveform generation with analog filters. In particular, additive synthesis can be thought of in much the same ways as FM, it's a "thing" that can be embraced in and of itself, however, it was still better with analog filters owing to technology limitations at the time.I don't think there was really anyone that thought in terms of digital vs analog at that time.
FM WAS overestimated at the time. That's exactly the point. The attitude that you are expressing was commonly held. While the theory holds that FM can synthesize any sound, in practice, this is unrealizable with any practical combination of operators and programming skill. I don't for a minute believe that Yamaha's engineers weren't smart enough to know this. Consequently, the decision to exclude filters was purely practical. It would have added significantly to the cost and would have diminished the value of FM as being this new futuristic technology.
The fact that some people hold onto this misunderstanding of the difference between theory and practice is a testament to the success of marketing FM, but that doesn't make it any truer now than it was then.
However, it was held, rather arrogantly, by academics back then as well. John Strawn writes (in 1985) "Like additive synthesis, FM permits control of the audio spectrum with enough precision so that the composer has adequate control over the resulting sounds"
I guess that depends on who's defining "adequate," no?
Again, see FS1R and perhaps ask yourself why it has filters if they are unnecessary?I think 'it would have been so much more useful with analog filters' is ignorant and comfort-zone laziness, intellectually.