FM for modern sounds?

[Tusker]

We've had discussion of "classic" FM sounds.

 

I realized recently that a lot of my favorite bass and percussion sounds are essentially FM. So are some interesting special effects. So, I am wondering if anyone is using FM for modern sounding productions and sound design?

 

What tools are you using? How are you using them? Any recommendations?

[CEB]

I"ve used FM8 and FM7.

 

Currently I"m using Korg MOD-7. My favorite trick is the same one I"ve used since running a pair of TX81Zs in parallel on the same midi receive channel. In the Kronos I am fond of setting up two identical MOD-7 zones and adjust the size of the sound by Micro detuning the 2nd zone from the 1st. You can do some cool basses and leads. If I played leads in a Metal band I would probably bring using FM leads all the time.

[Stokely]

Keeping in mind I'm just someone who piddles around at home, gigs classic pop/rock live (or did).

 

I really like FM, though not that EP sound! I very fondly remember albums from people like David Arkenstone and I believe a lot of that sound was the DX7. Very clean and clear, which is nice when mixed with analog-sounding stuff. Speaking of, some of the best pad sounds in my Modx are a combination of the FM synth and samples.

 

I have FM8 as part of Komplete, and Dexed which is a free DX7 emulation. Unfortunately I'm not up on how to program FM, never really was. More fortunately, there are a ton of presets available for both of those--Dexed has all the cartridge patches from a huge DX7 library, though they aren't named well at all so its a pain to browse them.

 

Edit: here's the Arkenstone album I really wore out. Not entirely sure if this has DX7 but it sure sounds like it along with other stuff.

[video:youtube]

[ProfD]

I just picked up a Yamaha Reface DX. Sure enough, it has enough FM buliding blocks to produce my favorite sounds. The Reface DX is also easier to program than the DX7IID I owned

 

IMO, FM synthesis is very capable of producing modern sounds. Just a matter of finding the right FM synth and digging into programming it.

[Baldwin Funster]

No static at all.

[ElmerJFudd]

The Montage/MODX certainly show FM can do modern sounds with lots of motion.

[Delaware Dave]

As the PC4 seems to be a hot topic with the 76 key being introduced, listen to these

 

 

[Stokely]

I didn't even know the PC4 had an FM engine...

 

Edit: removed most of my post, it was getting off-topic.

[Markyboard]

I spent several hours and got lost in this dual oscillator module today. FM? Oh yeah!

 

 

[Mighty Motif Max]

Pretty sure it's used in electronic music quite a bit for those "pluck" sounds. Or FM/VA hybrids too. It's definitely an inspiration behind some of the electronic sounds (basses, leads, plucks, comps) in pop music.

[David Emm]

I held my nose at the idea of programming FM for a long time, for the usual reasons. I preferred the famous DX bell as a Korg DW8000 neo-wavetable I could tweak analog-style. I'd also EQ the high end of analog synths for bells, just short of creating a screech.

 

>> Fast forward a few decades >> A few months back, I skeptically downloaded the free DEXED because of the huge library. I was shown the error of my dismissal. I tweedled a few algorithms, to be pleasantly surprised more than expected. (The GUI is spartan, but fully capable.) There are some lush analog pads to be had, as well as near-acoustic items. It goes far beyond That Bell or the sharp dance basses. I once thought 6 operators weren't enough for Big Time Synthesis, but I don't mind being proven wrong. I mostly just add a track or two of FM or additive for better definition of a thick central patch, but after corona-reviewing the crap out of the generous preset banks, I'm satisfied that I've made a good addition to my palette. Pigments offers a dusting of FM, but this is the full monty.

 

'Modern sounds' is a relative term. There are some smarter approaches now, but no truly new ways of *generating* sound. If anyone here doesn't already understand lining up the called-for instrument tracks as needed for the job at hand, oh my, you ARE a newbie, heh! You need FM as an up-front driver of the song, a supporting junior partner or a pre-frontal lobotomy because FM programming has ruined your life like a gambling addiction.

[Al Coda]

Dexed is very good in emulating a DX7.

But it cannot do what the more advanced Yamaha FM machines did:

 

Modulating dedicated operators w/ samples or using the 8-Operator algorithms of the Yamaha FS1R.

 

I´d really like to see a software version of the FS1R.

 

B.t.w.,- the Kurz PC4´s FM engine allows modulating operators w/ samples !

 

A.C.

[Markyboard]

I"ve never spent more than a few minutes in a store trying to modulate an operator with a sample. But even using the higher harmonic operators as modulators are challenging. Do these samples as modulators result in anything useful besides very short percussive sounds?

[Al Coda]

I"ve never spent more than a few minutes in a store trying to modulate an operator with a sample. But even using the higher harmonic operators as modulators are challenging. Do these samples as modulators result in anything useful besides very short percussive sounds?

 

I´ve seen it coming ...

 

Well, it´s a sound designer´s toy and I´m not one of those guys even I do my own patches or at least edit existing ones according to my needs or imagination.

I´d say, modulating operators w/ samples result(ed) in more or less extraordinary, special or call ´em,- unusual sounds.

 

It also depends on the sample used,- and in the former/ ancient designs of Yammi FM synths,- these were only the samples available in that 8MB ROM of the SY-series machines,- which only existed because of mimiking acoustic instruments, beginning w/ piano and ending w/ drums.

I´m pretty sure, you can find samples doing a better job than these gen. #1 AWM samples did.

I can imagine, tuning of that sample and some envelope shape as well might play a role.

If I understood correctly, in the KURZ FM engine, you get the option to use any internal or user sample you put in a separate layer of a program, use all the DSP available in that layer,- and output that result into a modulaton input of a given FM algo´s specified operator.

That´s by far MUCH more you can do to control the process vs. the old Yammi synth designs.

 

So,- if you were a sound designing nerd, you might find that FM modulation option useful and,- as a "genious",- come up w/ stunning results,- who knows ?

 

anyway ...

 

A.C.

[Markyboard]

I should have qualified that by useable I meant playable. I"m sure I"ve heard 1-shot sound effects, drones and other impressive soundscapes resulting from this type of synthesis.

 

But this sound design nerd still goes after playable sounds .

[DrSynth]

In the context of 'modern' implementations of FM (i.e. PM) being sine and non-sine waveform Operators + Filters + Mod Matrix, there is nearly nothing it cannot do once you've learned it's language. The versatility and timbre space of additive at a fraction of the effort. The inherent modulation index --> timbral response makes FM one of the best playable/dynamic/expressive synthesis types out there.

 

BTW, not sure what 'modern' sounds are per se, I assume that means anything other than the 'classic' presets of the original DX7

 

Anyway, I'm splitting most of my current FM noodlings on Montage, Hydrasynth, Iridium and still favorite SY99. All are capable of stunning playable & controllable/modulatable sounds in whatever context you need.

 

One thing - highly complex and/or harmonically rich waveforms as modulators is one of those things that sounds cool on paper but much, much less useful in reality. The way FM works is creating harmonics from the interaction of the Modulators and carriers, and the point is controlling specific areas of those interactions. All sine wave FM is the most controllable -- think throwing individual, identical size pebbles in a pond to create patterns of ripples, controlling where and how hard throw in each one. The more complex the modulator waveforms, now you're starting to throw in bunches of different size pebbles at a time, and by using samples of acoustic sounds you're flinging in whole handfulls of random sized pebbles. No matter where and how hard you throw them in the resulting ripples quickly get chaotic and uncontrollable in any useful 'playable' sense very quickly.

 

If looking to get a hardware synth to do "modern FM", I'd highly recommend the Hydrasynth keyboard. All the Mutant processing is essentially FM/PM implementations. Wavetable --> Wavetable FM is _really_ cool for a lot of stuff, not just ambient pads. Plus Poly AT, Ribbon and great Mod Matrix. Insane price/performance ratio.

 

Second choices would be the Essence FM from Kodamo, a Yamaha Montage or Iridium (also has Wavetable FM). The PC4 implementation is cool as VAST is still a beast, though you get into polyphony limitations as you start cascading the layers. The Kronos is probably the all around most versatile, but takes a lot of configuation and set up to unlock it.

 

Software wise - FM8

[Delaware Dave]

The PC4 implementation is cool as VAST is still a beast, though you get into polyphony limitations as you start cascading the layers.

Yes, but the PC4 has 256 voices of polyphony, making the polyphony wall harder to hit.

[Tusker]

Hey Everyone, Thanks for the awesome replies. I'll focus a few of them at time, and try to push the thread in different directions, but I am not trying to focus on any practical solution to a particular need. Let's allow various sub-topics to emerge. I have a vague FM itch. It's like when you haven't a particular favorite food or drink for awhile. It's like a hankering. Which is why ...

 

I didn't even know the PC4 had an FM engine...

 

Edit: removed most of my post, it was getting off-topic.

 

I am so sorry if I said something that caused you restrain yourself!! Now we'll be wondering what we are missing. We can take this conversation anywhere. I am mostly thinking of the phase modulation/phase distortion (and the Yamaha DX-ish toolkit) more than analog cross modulation and filter modulation, but if you want to talk about audio rate modulation of any sort, let's do it! Hey, they are all connected and one can flow into the other these days.

 

It might help if I describe where I am coming from. To me in this modern age, there are many ways of getting a bit of FM into a live performance or a DAW mix. Software synths abound which have FM as a part of a larger arsenal. (which I would love to discuss as we go along) In the early days of FM, that was not easy for most of us. Secondly FM timbres have become less exotic. In the early 80s, if you were getting that DX7, you were probably NOT hauling another keyboard. FM had to stand alone and justify it's 1/2 place or 1/3 place in your rig. And for many of us it did. Today it's different. You can FM a sample in lots of platforms (not just SY), synths come with FM and a low pass filter (remember when that was a breakthrough idea for the AN200?). It's as though FM today is a bottled spice which you can conveniently sprinkle with other flavors in different ways. And that's what I am hearing in "modern sounds". If I go the movies ... I can hear a Talking Drum, which may have FM, a bunch of samples and processing, all working together. (not that layering itself is a new idea: I think I remember a 1980s keyboard magazine article discussing how Jeff Lorber layered a DX for the attack partial with a Moog for the body of the sound. Best of both worlds.) I guess my point is that FM (of the phase distortion variety) stood a bit to a side and played specific, identifiable roles. That's why the stereo-types emerged.

 

In those 1980s I performed with a DX7, but I was very conservative timbrally. No Brian Eno, I stuck to keyboard sounds and imitations of acoustic or electric instruments. Mostly I played the presets. I also used an FB07 and a DX7 in the studio in my college (to which I had the keys!!!) and there I would tweak. In the 90's and 2000s my Nord Modular replicated the DX7 FM and you would make a 21 operator synth if you wanted to. I mostly just added a filter or two to one of the classic algorithms. But I would add extra lfos and envelopes in a way you couldn't in the original DX. The Nord Modular was the Dexed of it's day. Any DX series patch was available. Now it WAS a very complex screen (which is something else I would like to discuss) and you would find yourself getting lost, because every single function required a module, you had to scroll large distances on that screen and the patch cords were in your face. It was so easy to get lost! Still, the power and the sound were there. These days, I use Logic and Mainstage which have a bit of FM in Alchemy, in Retrosynth and in FM1. These are pretty basic (You can have 12 operators in Alchemy, but you can't replicate the stacked DX algorithms easily. It's fiddly.). A couple of years, I performed with a Phil Collins tribute where I used samples at first for the DX sounds. The team liked them, but I remembered how the original would slice through the mix. I went back and added real FM, with the kind of sharp transients you don't get from commercial samples and did that get their attention!!! Suddenly these bells were an assertive complement to the low distorted guitars. It brought the mix into balance.

 

So that's hopefully a better introduction to this thread. Or at least how I am coming into it. Love FM. Let's talk tools and strategies. Looking forward to hearing more....

[Markyboard]

My first thought is all the power to those who have such a strong grasp of frequency management that they don't get "lost". And I think this is true with FM/PM no matter which tool you use. Yeah some synths are more user friendly, functionally limited or enhanced with additional features but FM has never been intuitive or predictable beyond the most basic of structures.

 

This is why it's historically been relegated to presets or shunned altogether. But for the experimenters I don't think anything has changed. Almost all my patches were "experimental" back in the DX7 days meaning I didn't set out with any preconceived sound in mind. It took on a life of its own and sometimes that sound turned out really cool. Other times not so much. Also sometimes I would layer it with another synth for that cutting timbre and other times it would stand alone.

 

I can't see doing anything different today using FM8. I was never into the FS1R auto pilot stuff although there was some cool sounds that people came up with. I just always prefer to work at the building block level. Tbh I haven't revisited FM-8 in many months (or maybe over a year?) but it's threads like this that inspire me, so thanks.

[Stokely]

Hey Everyone, Thanks for the awesome replies. I'll focus a few of them at time, and try to push the thread in different directions, but I am not trying to focus on any practical solution to a particular need. Let's allow various sub-topics to emerge. I have a vague FM itch. It's like when you haven't a particular favorite food or drink for awhile. It's like a hankering. Which is why ...

 

I didn't even know the PC4 had an FM engine...

 

Edit: removed most of my post, it was getting off-topic.

 

I am so sorry if I said something that caused you restrain yourself!! Now we'll be wondering what we are missing.

 

Oh no, nothing like that. I went off on a tangent about my pc361's screen problems and how that made me leery of the pc4, and I wondered if the new hardware had changed. Basically completely taking away from the FM discussion!

 

Back on point, what really makes a difference with many FM sounds--perhaps more than analog--is fx. The DX7 in a studio with a great Lexicon reverb for example is a wonderful thing (obviously depending on what you are shooting for). But again I could say the same for many keyboards. I had a JX-10 in the 80s and it came alive when I got to use it with a real plate reverb...I was so used to playing it dry with headphones it was a bit of a shock.

 

As I mentioned, some of the pad sounds using FM in my Modx are just amazing. I also like FM for aggressive guitar-like synth patches. I really should get down and learn more with FM8 but there are SO MANY presets that I can typically find one quite close to what I want. The more I mess with it the worse it sounds LOL! Also, FM8 has an annoyingly-small interface because Native Instruments hasn't updated it in forever. I'd LOVE an FM9, as would many other people.

[ProfD]

IMO, FM programming doesn't provide the same level of instant gratification as knob and slider driven analog synthesis. FM does provide the building blocks for a wider variety of sounds. Depending on the programming interface, it takes a certain amount of patience that only appeals to our nerdy side.

 

I think it's great that modern KBs like the Yamaha MODX, Kurweil PC4 and Korg Kronos offer FM programmability. However, I'd believe the overwhelming number of presets, features and functionality of the KB would keep most synthesists from deep diving into the FM side.

 

That's why I went for a purely FM based synth (Reface DX) with a limited number of presets. I have the option of starting from scratch or using a preset as a template. If I come up with a sound I dig, I have to make a choice of whether it's really worth keeping. Again, thankfully the user interface makes programming a lot easier.

 

I'll eventually cop a software FM synth as well. But, from a musically useful sound and performance perspective, believe I've got the best of both worlds in a programmable FM synth.

[Ken Beaumont]

Agreed ProfD, that was my reasoning when I I bought a Roland D-05. Lot's of instantly recognizable sounds, programmable and doesn't use much space. It was also relatively inexpensive.

[DrSynth]

The PC4 implementation is cool as VAST is still a beast, though you get into polyphony limitations as you start cascading the layers.

Yes, but the PC4 has 256 voices of polyphony, making the polyphony wall harder to hit.

 

Per Kurzweil manual:

 

"FM Layer Structure

Each FM layer contains 6 Operators in 1 of 32 algorithms. The 6 Operators are the primary sound source in FM layers. Each Operator contains an oscillator with amplitude controlled by an envelope generator. FM synthesis allows you to modulate the frequency of the Operators in order to create many timbres.

Note: Each note played by an FM Layer uses 4 of the PC4"s 256 voices."

 

So a single layer FM patch is 64 notes of poly, same as MODX; Cascading or doubling up 2 FM layers drops that to 32. Not sure when cascading into non-FM VAST layers how the DSP allocations change the polyphony.

 

Essence FM is the polyphony king - 300 notes

[Tusker]

Edit: here's the Arkenstone album I really wore out. Not entirely sure if this has DX7 but it sure sounds like it along with other stuff.

 

Sounds beautiful bro. Yes I am hearing some DX also along with some D-50 maybe?

 

Maybe this is a good place to suggest that we post some of your favorite FM sounds and videos? I like to think that FM is simple. That works better for me than saying it's hard. It seems me that we musicians spend so much time learning the intricacies of notes and chords and scales, but when it come to timbre, we want to stop studying, lol. "Give me one big knob." we say. "Anything more than that is too complicated."

 

But with FM, there are just a few basic principles ... it's easier than we have been told it is.

 

[video:youtube]

 

That's why I applaud our brothers who are gigging the Reface DX. Keeping it simple. Focusing on the music.

[Tusker]

As the PC4 seems to be a hot topic with the 76 key being introduced, listen to these

 

 

 

Thank you for these awesome clips. Dave Weiser is brilliant.

[ProfD]

I like to think that FM is simple. That works better for me than saying it's hard. It seems me that we musicians spend so much time learning the intricacies of notes and chords and scales, but when it come to timbre, we want to stop studying, lol. "Give me one big knob." we say. "Anything more than that is too complicated."

Most musicians learn how to play an instrument with one timbre. IMO, technology requires a a level of curiousity above learning notes, chords, scales, etc.

 

We are a small group of musicians so inclined to dive into synthesis and sound design. It is the other side of creative mind.

[Markyboard]

One of the coolest things about synths is they appeal to so many people with varied interests and for different purposes.

[Tusker]

We are a small group of musicians so inclined to dive into synthesis and sound design.

 

So true. Not a place on the internet like ours. When you mentioned the Reface DX I realized what I needed: A Reface DX in software. Looking around, I stumbled on this little synth: 4 op, multiple waveforms, modular routing. No samples though (would have used that).

 

Digging in right now ...

 

 

 

 

[video:youtube]

[Theo Verelst]

FM means audio modulation of the frequency, most known where the oscillators (both the modulated and modulator) are fairly pure sine waves, or maybe are analog synth oscillators. In the case of sine waves, the spectrum coming out of the modulated "operator" exhibits components with an relative amplitude guarded by Bessel functions. These spectral components are always the same for a given set of oscillator frequencies and modulation index, regardless of the technology, so that would make FM sounds somewhat the same except for what happens with the operators (sine wave oscillators) besides constant frequency and a fixed modulation amount. Implementations like the DX7 require a relative high amount of processing power to keep up with all the envelopes (at least one per operator) at sample rate, and modern redos like Dexed allow the use of higher precision computations, but still require some processing power to run proper.

 

Modern audio software often makes use of approximations, which isn't always pretty and not necessarily leads to the right sound, to the point of that I find most unbearable to listen to.

 

The original PC3 also allows actual FM sounds, like the PC4 suggests with a number of layers and correct use of the shaper block (essentially a sine table with phase input),however, the signal path has not been put together properly as the very clever starting points have suggested (I strongly presume Mr Stevie Wonder in there) so it usually sound too much like pooh.

 

I've worked with FPGA based real time FM synthesis as a 'modern' method, which is fun but like proven by Dexed the tuning of all kinds of accurate parameters isn't easy but required to get to those known DX sounds.

 

T.

[Tusker]

My favorite trick is the same one I"ve used since running a pair of TX81Zs in parallel on the same midi receive channel. In the Kronos I am fond of setting up two identical MOD-7 zones and adjust the size of the sound by Micro detuning the 2nd zone from the 1st.

 

 

This. Just detune and stack as you say. We always detune analog oscillators after all. Keith Emerson's tech reported that they duplicated the GX1 horns powerfully on TX816s back in the day. I believe him.

 

[video:youtube]