Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

FM for modern sounds?


Recommended Posts



  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I

Eventually I stumbled on something I liked by having the carrier modulate what was the upper modulator. And there are some high frequencies testing my ears. Such is fm programming. I still stand by my previous comment that a significant amount of 'frequency range' is unusable for playable harmonic sounds. I struggled with the highest operator ratio at 32. There"s still half of the range left. Also It seems starting with a high carrier frequency and generating lower harmonics would yield the same sound as the reverse, all else being equal..

 

Markyboard, I checked out the Soundcloud, and that sounds nice, you ended finding the sweet spot. Something to keep in mind. FM programming is like cooking -- you don't want to use every ingredient (Ratio) at your disposal unless you know what it's amount (Index) contributes to the final flavor. In your exploring the upper Ratio frequency range you're out there in the 'exotic flavors' as the harmonics you're getting in the final sound with the 32 Ratio are partials 31, 33, 63, 65, 95, 97 - which you need _very little_ of, and after 31 & 33 the system is just aliasing once you're much above middle C (i.e trash can). The higher Ratios can be special spice for the lowest notes, or for intentionally creating aliasing for drum/percussion stuff. So the 32-64 range is there for when you need it, and rather than showing a lot of FM range is unusable it actually shows how efficient FM is with the wide range or resultant timbres available with Ratios 1-8.

 

I doubt that FM will ever be a sound designer's wet dream because it is more cumbersome and the diminishing returns add up. :laugh:

 

But, in it's own space, FM is extremely capable of producing a variety of musically ineteresting sounds. It is certainly the only "synth" I need. :cool:

 

PD, I stongly disagree with the first statement. It's extremenly efficient timbral creation and control, and you can easiliy avoid diminishing returns when you understand when it's time to move on from one Operator to another. In the cooking analogy, know when to stop adding garlic and start adding a little basil. (though, as a Cuban/Italian American, is there ever too much garlic ?!? :) )

 

The second statement I wholly agree with, and would add that 'it's own space' is huge.

 

Nice to hear your adventures in person and I think your description matched what I heard pretty well. I agree that SoundCloud seems to have some issues with higher frequencies. They probably sounded a tad sweeter on your monitors before the SoundCloud algo did it"s thing.

 

We all have our go to sounds with which we first proof-test a synth or a concept. For me it"s usually a filter sweep or a pitch sweep. For one of my friends it"s low frequency stuff like bass and kick. Would it be fair to say that one of things you look for a synth to do is a sound which can carry a melody and yet adds something fresh to the sound design? It"s not my place to say but that sounds like a very valid and sensible musical goal.

 

I find FM by itself to be not as good as analog for that kind of thing. Hopefully somebody will prove me wrong, lol. One exception could be when it"s surrounded by super warm timbres and the 'clarity' provides contrast kinda like a piccolo in a thicket of French horns.

 

Still in combination with other synth techniques as (ProfD said), it seems to be ok to me. I wouldn"t put up an FM lead sound against a Knifonium or a Swarmatron. It"s ... different. You could do the classic detuning with FM of course but you might need to use multiple instances of FM8. I used to run FM through a real analog filter but haven"t felt a need to do that recently as DSP filters have improved. I also use body modeling a bit as I mentioned above. It seems to take the edge off when you need it to.

 

Tusker, I completely agree fitting a sound into the music to carry the melody is important and bring something fresh is a worthy goal. For me FM fits that bill better than analog as it intrinsically is not just another filter sweep of some sort which is basically the limit of timbre behviors in analog. And, I could see putting FM up against things as unique as a Knifonium or Swarmatron, it definitely will be different but can have very similar character. BTW - 'classic detuning with FM' ala a stacked TX816 approach is completely incorrect for replicating the interactions that goes on with multiple analog oscillators.

 

Flow motion is a really nice implementation, like Opsix a 'safe' playground with still a lot you can do.

 

 

Here's some examples of the FM timbre space:

**Single Yamaha SY99 using internal sequencer >no filters were used<

 

** Multitracked Yamaha Reface DX, including all drums & percussion

 

**Yamaha Montage - start with the second movement around 6:40. I really like dynamics in the thrid movement, and the sustaining overtones at 11:40 - 12:00

 

Who needs a modular synth? This is just 2 notes held on one SY99. A lot of bottom end :

 

Manny

People assume timbre is a strict progression of input to harmonics, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timbrally-wimbrally... stuff

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - 'classic detuning with FM' ala a stacked TX816 approach is completely incorrect for replicating the interactions that goes on with multiple analog oscillators.

 

Thank you Manny. Today seems to be my day for causing misunderstandings. LOL. I don't replicate analog with FM. I do detune FM because it works for my sound design. Detuning is valid for FM sound sources just as it is for massed violins, piano strings and analog oscillators. It is slightly different in all these cases, and yet ... musical. :)

 

Loving your sonic examples and will respond with more detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to keep in mind. FM programming is like cooking -- you don't want to use every ingredient (Ratio) at your disposal unless you know what it's amount (Index) contributes to the final flavor.

 

I doubt that FM will ever be a sound designer's wet dream because it is more cumbersome and the diminishing returns add up. :laugh:

 

But, in it's own space, FM is extremely capable of producing a variety of musically ineteresting sounds. It is certainly the only "synth" I need. :cool:

 

PD, I stongly disagree with the first statement. It's extremenly efficient timbral creation and control, and you can easiliy avoid diminishing returns when you understand when it's time to move on from one Operator to another. In the cooking analogy, know when to stop adding garlic and start adding a little basil. (though, as a Cuban/Italian American, is there ever too much garlic ?!? :) )

Brotha Manny, the cooking analogy is perfect for what I was trying to humorously apply in terms of diminishing returns adding up. Too much ratio in FM or garlic or basil in food could ruin a sonic dish.:laugh::cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Markyboard, I checked out the Soundcloud, and that sounds nice, you ended finding the sweet spot. Something to keep in mind. FM programming is like cooking -- you don't want to use every ingredient (Ratio) at your disposal unless you know what it's amount (Index) contributes to the final flavor. In your exploring the upper Ratio frequency range you're out there in the 'exotic flavors' as the harmonics you're getting in the final sound with the 32 Ratio are partials 31, 33, 63, 65, 95, 97 - which you need _very little_ of, and after 31 & 33 the system is just aliasing once you're much above middle C (i.e trash can). The higher Ratios can be special spice for the lowest notes, or for intentionally creating aliasing for drum/percussion stuff. So the 32-64 range is there for when you need it, and rather than showing a lot of FM range is unusable it actually shows how efficient FM is with the wide range or resultant timbres available with Ratios 1-8.

 

Manny

Thank you! This is the confirmation I've been seeking. Translating to Prof speak...there is no magic spice in the FM pantry that will magically transform this exotic dish into something both my kids and wife will like. :hitt:

 

Btw your sample is wonderful. I'm really glad you presented the dry version which reeks fm in the finest sense.

 

Re the filter sweep comment that was my bad Jerry. Totally missed your point the first time. And shame on me as I spent yesterday doing something I rarely do; trying to match up 2 different synths; Voyager and K-Odyssey. All because I thought I was hearing the Odyssey when it was actually the Voyager which I failed to mute while controlling the Odyssey via CV. Turns out on the particular sound I had dialed up the Voyager's 1 pole filter got pretty damn close to the Odyssey although still lacking some fizz. That and the envelope distinguished some of their unique character. But it was creating a filter sweep that told a broader story.

 

Anyway time to move on and I just wanted to thank you guys for this discussion. Imo we don't talk nearly enough about really using these synths as synthesizers. This has been great. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark, no worries on the filter sweep comment. It's really my bad for just being kludgy at expressing myself. Your comments on this thread have been invaluable and insightful. So thank you for everything.

 

Manny, I don't really know how to react to the FM examples you linked to except to say wow! What came through for me is the immense contribution you have made over decades of sound design. Your discipline and passion come through loud and clear. For me the moonlight sonata was the jaw dropper. Take a familiar and highly complex sound, then generate an entirely exposed rendition of it being played idiomatically. A challenge well met. To your point about the sustaining overtones at 11.40 .... I imagine hours and days of painstaking analysis of the spectra. Thank you.

 

Speaking of spectra, there is a project I would like enlist FM's aid on. I wonder if you might have some advice. It's a melodic monophonic sound with a particular flaring of timbre which is part of the player's expression. I am not into imitative synthesis per se, but I would like to be able to replicate the idiom. (As an analogy: A saw pad can swell as an lpf opens, just as a brass section in an orchestra can swell ... yet the two are not the same sound. That swell however, is idiomatically valuable across a range of sounds.)

 

So this idiom (which I call a "flare") is often found in double reed instruments when the player adjusts bite pressure and breath pressure at the same time. You will hear it in duduk, nadaswaram, shawm, oboe and bassoon. The timbre flares a bit brightly, sometimes there is a bit more noise/breath, sometimes the fundamental frequency is reduced, various mid-range partials are changed in amplitude. Often, the idiom is part of the tremolo of the instrument, at other times it's part of the swell of the musical phrase.

 

I've done this "flare" with subtractive synthesis, changing the pulse width, reducing the fundamental with a high pass filter and adding a bit of rectified clipping for "bite". Subtractive is like painting with a broad brush, however. I've also got good results with Yamaha VL and Reaktor Steampipe. But it seems to me that it would be a nice idiomatic trick to put into FM. It would be a good proof case for FM, in the "mid-range" partials and with a lot of harmonicity. Also, once the trick is understood, it can be used across a range of sounds, some of which may not be at all like a double reed.

 

Flow-motion is not up to this task. It's a fantastic tool for sketching an idea quickly, but the modulation environment is basic and you will have to do complex things in the host to supplement. I'll probably try to do this on Alchemy, which allows precise modulations with control over linearity and range. I am trying to stay away from Reaktor if I can. It's the most precise tool, but will take me three times as long to do it.

 

Do you think there would be value in getting a copy of dexed and maybe going through the Yamaha catalog to find sounds to study? Are there particular patches you would direct me to? (I am reminded that the DX harmonica was killer, but I don't remember what timbral variation it had.)

 

It could be that some parts of this sound, are just basic additive, or subtractive. I am ok with blending the synthesis tools. To me, FM has always been a spice in the kitchen, as Prof D says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've communicatd before, I halfway the 1980's as an EE student was the proud owner of the the DX7, while maintaining the desire to keep a warm analogue on retainer, and I used to learn some subtle piano on the DXs keyboard. FM is complex because the spectrum of a modulation in frequency has infinite components which vary in amplitude with changing modulation index. The connection with struck metal as a sound makes it possible to think like a church bell resonating over a long distance with complex reverberation.

 

Now digital: even a single sine wave oscillator modulating a carrier requires the proper phase advancement of the carrier oscillator to be the sum if it's own phase accumulation eith the integral of the modulator waveform in between the samples. And that's for a perfectly reconstructing DAC turning the simplest digital FM setup into a analog signal to be amplified. Non-stationary waves (envelopes, LFOs), more operators, feedback and the accuracy of the rounding in the computations added to this makes most of the software attempts and some of the "new" hardware FM efforts a waste of my time.

 

Trying to make a professional FM sound where reconstruction preparation, mid-range frequency blare control and reverberation preparation are part of the algorithms in the FM computations is very hard indeed. Trying to find that golden FM piano sound (talking about the 80s/90s)IIRC is about a chance of 1 to 2 to power of 150 (the number of sound influencing bits in a D patch), which is very small.

 

T.V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to make a professional FM sound where reconstruction preparation, mid-range frequency blare control and reverberation preparation are part of the algorithms in the FM computations is very hard indeed. Trying to find that golden FM piano sound (talking about the 80s/90s)IIRC is about a chance of 1 to 2 to power of 150 (the number of sound influencing bits in a D patch), which is very small.

 

Good point! Thank you for your comment Theo. True, those electric piano tine sounds are very forgiving. You can add something at 31.5 semitones above the fundamental, or (going from memory), at 27 semitones. If it's soft enough, it will quickly begin to evoke your electric tine without affecting the body of sound. By contrast, these mid-range modifications of the "blare" or "flare" are quite subtle and they change the spectra in multiple ways simultaneously. That's why I thought that if anyone has cracked this problem for FM, it might be Manny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Manny, I don't really know how to react to the FM examples you linked to except to say wow! What came through for me is the immense contribution you have made over decades of sound design. Your discipline and passion come through loud and clear. For me the moonlight sonata was the jaw dropper. Take a familiar and highly complex sound, then generate an entirely exposed rendition of it being played idiomatically. A challenge well met. To your point about the sustaining overtones at 11.40 .... I imagine hours and days of painstaking analysis of the spectra. Thank you.

 

Speaking of spectra, there is a project I would like enlist FM's aid on. I wonder if you might have some advice. It's a melodic monophonic sound with a particular flaring of timbre which is part of the player's expression. I am not into imitative synthesis per se, but I would like to be able to replicate the idiom. (As an analogy: A saw pad can swell as an lpf opens, just as a brass section in an orchestra can swell ... yet the two are not the same sound. That swell however, is idiomatically valuable across a range of sounds.)

 

So this idiom (which I call a "flare") is often found in double reed instruments when the player adjusts bite pressure and breath pressure at the same time. You will hear it in duduk, nadaswaram, shawm, oboe and bassoon. The timbre flares a bit brightly, sometimes there is a bit more noise/breath, sometimes the fundamental frequency is reduced, various mid-range partials are changed in amplitude. Often, the idiom is part of the tremolo of the instrument, at other times it's part of the swell of the musical phrase.

 

I've done this "flare" with subtractive synthesis, changing the pulse width, reducing the fundamental with a high pass filter and adding a bit of rectified clipping for "bite". Subtractive is like painting with a broad brush, however. I've also got good results with Yamaha VL and Reaktor Steampipe. But it seems to me that it would be a nice idiomatic trick to put into FM. It would be a good proof case for FM, in the "mid-range" partials and with a lot of harmonicity. Also, once the trick is understood, it can be used across a range of sounds, some of which may not be at all like a double reed.

 

Tusker, first a sincere thank you for the compliment, I truly appreciate it. One of the reasons I'm so passoinate about FM is that it's so damn playable, responsive and expressive regardless of timbre space-- imitative or otheriwise, It would be very well suited to your example (of course VL would be ideal, but more time consuming).

 

BTW for me the most remarkable thing about the piano exercise was it was programmed by repeated playing of individual notes to get the dynamic timbre, transient and decay/sustain behaviors essentially in isolation. I'm not an accomplished player by any means compared to most everyone on the forums here. Sure, I'd pound out (literally) a few riffs and motifs here and there but that was mainly to check it sounded 'right' to my ears and to see that things meshed in chords. The Moonlight Sonata is a MIDI file I found -- unedited other than some velocity tweaks to match the Montage velocity curves I used. And it just meshed with the patch ! The harmonic textures and interactions of the overtones of all those sustaining notes at 11:40 were just 'there' - no analysis of the spectra, just that those individuals notes sounded proper when I'd let them ring out. That is something that is part of the inherent musicality of FM.

 

 

Do you think there would be value in getting a copy of dexed and maybe going through the Yamaha catalog to find sounds to study? Are there particular patches you would direct me to? (I am reminded that the DX harmonica was killer, but I don't remember what timbral variation it had.)

 

It could be that some parts of this sound, are just basic additive, or subtractive. I am ok with blending the synthesis tools. To me, FM has always been a spice in the kitchen, as Prof D says.

 

I don't think DEXED would necessarily be the way to go. Nothing I can think off the top of my head patch-wise that might be out there as I always roll my own. The controllers you'd prefer to use might dictate a particular platform being more suited than another. What other FM gear/ VI's do you have ? PM me, we'll chat.

 

Trying to make a professional FM sound where reconstruction preparation, mid-range frequency blare control and reverberation preparation are part of the algorithms in the FM computations is very hard indeed. Trying to find that golden FM piano sound (talking about the 80s/90s)IIRC is about a chance of 1 to 2 to power of 150 (the number of sound influencing bits in a D patch), which is very small.

 

Good point! Thank you for your comment Theo. True, those electric piano tine sounds are very forgiving. You can add something at 31.5 semitones above the fundamental, or (going from memory), at 27 semitones. If it's soft enough, it will quickly begin to evoke your electric tine without affecting the body of sound. By contrast, these mid-range modifications of the "blare" or "flare" are quite subtle and they change the spectra in multiple ways simultaneously. That's why I thought that if anyone has cracked this problem for FM, it might be Manny.

 

I will neither confirm or deny, as I'd have to kill you :) :) But seriously, this is solved by what I call the 'harmonic component modeling" approach to synthesis. Applied to FM it's using different groups of Operators for specific areas of the desired timbres and blending them together.

 

Manny

People assume timbre is a strict progression of input to harmonics, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timbrally-wimbrally... stuff

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly I recall from the original D-7 that the combination of the sine purity and the signal path + DAC left some to be desired, even for the 1980's, so even though sufficiently wonderful sounds were possible on the fast chip digital newbred, purity was usually in intermediate dimensions like tuned combinations of operators, envelope digital curves and the right type of algorithm use. That that would somehow prove to be slaloming around sample errors with some sense of acoustic accuracy is probably part of pro design that went into the machine. I have the impression Dexed can approach those sounds (as I recall it LFOs were still off the last time I tried), but of course it depends on your plugin architecture and DAC type so that digital congruence with the DX or the later (more bits) TX802 actually becomes similar sound.

 

Epiano (ROM 11 IIRC) wasn't the most subtle instrument in the machine, but somehow it would mix, and there were variations (not sure they're there in the so-many-thousand sound banks floating around the internet) for more precise purposes, which would require a similar keyboard to play comfortably. When I had a DW8000 and a TX802 module, I missed the DXs keyboard, even though the keyboard was fine.

 

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned a Mark 1 DX7 for 35 years this month...

 

The real key to using FM sounds in a modern context is effects. I've added an Eventide H9 pedal in line with my DX7 and OMG, it sounds like a million bucks. The cheesiest pad sound can sound quite heavenly and spine-tingling with the ShimmerVerb algorithm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think DEXED would necessarily be the way to go. Nothing I can think off the top of my head patch-wise that might be out there as I always roll my own. The controllers you'd prefer to use might dictate a particular platform being more suited than another. What other FM gear/ VI's do you have ? PM me, we'll chat.

 

...

 

Manny

 

Good to know about Dexed, Manny. Thank you. I gigged VL for many years with patches like Floboe and Triple Reed. The Win 95 editor was cool, but frankly I broke more models than I built. After VL I began to use Reaktor ensembles. Steam Pipe 2 is a mainstay for me. There are also products like Respiro, Friktion and Sample modeling for wind synthesis. I've stayed away because my interest is not in imitative synthesis but in evocative expressions. I am trying to learn how to design subtle timbral changes under real time control (breath, aftertouch, etc) with FM. So far the best approach has been to set up timbral centers (harmonic components?) with independent operators and crossfade between them. Thanks for any advice you would offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Opsix it appears the operator level is applied equally to all operators per the algorithm. I forgot or maybe never thought about this with the original DX series. Or is there another parameter I"m forgetting here?

 

No, all Opertor Levels are independent - the cool thing about the Opsix interface is that each Operator has a dedicated Knob for Ratio and Slider for Level, plus the Red/Blue LED lightning to let you know if tit's a Carrier or Modulator. Very quick editing access for core timbre tweaking.

 

Manny

People assume timbre is a strict progression of input to harmonics, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timbrally-wimbrally... stuff

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to know about Dexed, Manny. Thank you. I gigged VL for many years with patches like Floboe and Triple Reed. The Win 95 editor was cool, but frankly I broke more models than I built. After VL I began to use Reaktor ensembles. Steam Pipe 2 is a mainstay for me. There are also products like Respiro, Friktion and Sample modeling for wind synthesis. I've stayed away because my interest is not in imitative synthesis but in evocative expressions. I am trying to learn how to design subtle timbral changes under real time control (breath, aftertouch, etc) with FM. So far the best approach has been to set up timbral centers (harmonic components?) with independent operators and crossfade between them. Thanks for any advice you would offer.

 

Tusker,

 

If you're using Classic Yamaha FM hardware pre-Montage/MODX, your only realtime options are the EG Bias parameter for control of Operator Level via the AMS depth with BC, Aftertouch etc. So in these situations in the 'classic' FM arcitecture I find a useful approach is using (original) DX7 algorithm 18, using AMS on Ops 2 & 6, with the higher AMS sensitivity on Op 2. Then a Ratio of 2 to 5 on Op 2 with lower Level 45-70 and AMS of 4-7; then Ratio 1 to 3 on Op 6 with moderate levels 65-80, AMS of 1-3. If using 4-Op TX81z & related, try it with the building the basic sound using sine waves and the EG Bias controlled OP with one of the complex waves

 

Better yet if using an SY77/99 because with AFM you get direct control of Operator Phase along with alternate waveforms, which allows pretty much for the ability to modulate any region of the harmonic spectra that you choose.

 

Montage/MODX is extremely versatile for this because every Operator can be controlled independently by different/multiple controllers, with various controller curve responses, plus there's 8 of them.

 

I know that's still kinda generalized, but hope it gives you some ideas.

 

Manny

People assume timbre is a strict progression of input to harmonics, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timbrally-wimbrally... stuff

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Opsix it appears the operator level is applied equally to all operators per the algorithm. I forgot or maybe never thought about this with the original DX series. Or is there another parameter I"m forgetting here?

 

No, all Opertor Levels are independent - the cool thing about the Opsix interface is that each Operator has a dedicated Knob for Ratio and Slider for Level, plus the Red/Blue LED lightning to let you know if tit's a Carrier or Modulator. Very quick editing access for core timbre tweaking.

 

Manny

 

How do you independently control the amount of a modulator feeding 2 carriers with one slider?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC there was a matter of a "course edit" in some of the DX series derived FM keyboards, where you could for instance put all the envelopes faster or slower, maybe that's a thing.

 

On the original DX there was this thing about accuracy that for me could make or break a sound, which even was a matter of effects for the good sounds to shine a bit, and probably, just like I recently verified interesting mix bands being present in the ROM banks, there were specific blends of reverb and short reverb tails that could make a TX802 or a TC816 rack (many voice cards combined probably on average distort less) create subtle, High Fidelity sounds. For the time at least, but then real enough and playable. The modulation index change with velocity at various points of the signal graph of the FM sound (the "algorithm") would make for more interesting sound variations with playing dynamically than samples or analog synths would do.

 

The problem with the simulators, also in more modern instruments like the CP-4 where there's a certain type of capturing of the FM sounds effects can be that the exact frequency and amount of phase variation based on modulators makes a lot of difference, and there is not necessarily a point where the tonal elements start to repeat themselves.

 

T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned a Mark 1 DX7 for 35 years this month...

 

The real key to using FM sounds in a modern context is effects. I've added an Eventide H9 pedal in line with my DX7 and OMG, it sounds like a million bucks. The cheesiest pad sound can sound quite heavenly and spine-tingling with the ShimmerVerb algorithm.

First, congrats on the 35th anniversary with an original DX7. That's awesome. :thu:

 

Yep, effect pedals and outboard processors are the secret sauce and make a huge difference in sound design with any type of KB instrument. ;)

 

In fact, I've sold off more "advanced" synths because I can get the sounds I'll play using using a relatively simple synth or sound source and outboard gear. :cool:

PD

 

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn, is just to love and be loved in return."--E. Ahbez "Nature Boy"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Opsix it appears the operator level is applied equally to all operators per the algorithm. I forgot or maybe never thought about this with the original DX series. Or is there another parameter I"m forgetting here?

 

No, all Opertor Levels are independent - the cool thing about the Opsix interface is that each Operator has a dedicated Knob for Ratio and Slider for Level, plus the Red/Blue LED lightning to let you know if tit's a Carrier or Modulator. Very quick editing access for core timbre tweaking.

 

Manny

 

How do you independently control the amount of a modulator feeding 2 carriers with one slider?

 

Ah, now I get what you were referring to Markyboard... I initally read it the other way around.

 

So, the original DX architecture has always been 'source' routing, meaning that you set up the Ratio, Level and Envelope for the Modulator (i.e. source Operator) and yes, for the algorithms where that Modulator is 'patched' to multiple other Operators it will 'feed' those operator identical values.

 

FM-X in Montage/MODX is the same as original DX architecture (unfortunately)

 

Not having an Opsix and only looking at the manual, the 'preset' algorithms seem to follow the original DX archecture in this regard, unclear if there is a back door via the User algorithm to set up like AFM.

 

Now, AFM in the SY77/99 does allow for independent control of how each Operator feeds into another as each Operator's 'input' can be attenuated as well. So If Op 4 Mod level is 85 feeding into both Ops 2 and 3, there is a setting for Ops 2 and 3 to let that be, say, 100% for Op 2 and 50% for Op 3. This is also present in the 3 Feedback Loops/Patchable Operators in AFM. This is one of the 4 key differences in AFM (along with individual phase offset for each Op, a DC offset/waveshaping Operator mode, & looping envelopes) that make it the most timbrally versatile FM implementation Yamaha has done.

 

Hope that gives more clarity.

 

Manny

People assume timbre is a strict progression of input to harmonics, but actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly, timbrally-wimbrally... stuff

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Ah, now I get what you were referring to Markyboard... I initally read it the other way around.

 

 

"Sokath, his eyes uncovered"

darmok.jpg

:D

Thanks Manny. As I indicated this never occurred to me until I jealously watched the guy in the video whipping around between operator sliders and knobs.

 

I never knew this independent operator level affect is unique or even existed on the SY77/99. IMO this is not some subtle feature. It really does stretch the use of the operators in a practical sense, something I wouldn't want to give up. I've thought about mapping FM8 to my Akai controller, just way too many parameters largely due to this capability.

 

But I sure do like that real time control on the Opsix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tusker,

 

If you're using Classic Yamaha FM hardware pre-Montage/MODX, your only realtime options are the EG Bias parameter for control of Operator Level via the AMS depth with BC, Aftertouch etc. So in these situations in the 'classic' FM arcitecture I find a useful approach is using (original) DX7 algorithm 18, using AMS on Ops 2 & 6, with the higher AMS sensitivity on Op 2. Then a Ratio of 2 to 5 on Op 2 with lower Level 45-70 and AMS of 4-7; then Ratio 1 to 3 on Op 6 with moderate levels 65-80, AMS of 1-3. If using 4-Op TX81z & related, try it with the building the basic sound using sine waves and the EG Bias controlled OP with one of the complex waves

 

Better yet if using an SY77/99 because with AFM you get direct control of Operator Phase along with alternate waveforms, which allows pretty much for the ability to modulate any region of the harmonic spectra that you choose.

 

Montage/MODX is extremely versatile for this because every Operator can be controlled independently by different/multiple controllers, with various controller curve responses, plus there's 8 of them.

 

I know that's still kinda generalized, but hope it gives you some ideas.

 

Manny

 

That's fabulous Manny. It' so very helpful. You've given me a lovely and welcome little research project to do. There are now copies of the DX7 manual, the SY99 manual and Dexed on my Mac. Can the Montage manual be far behind? :D

 

While I dipped my toe in the FM water with Yamaha synths, I learned FM in the open architecture of the Nord Modular where every variable could be modulated by user-defined lfo's and envelopes or shaped in real time by any continuous controller. So the specialized DX language (and the unique DX/SY parameter ranges) are now of particular interest to me. Also, Operator Phase promises to be a unique variable for me to develop an intuition for. A little bit of my sound design in the Nord used to involve some consideration of phase and the particular edges of a waveform, so I can kinda guess the types of spectra one could create. But it's going to be fun to dig in. Reaktor would be the right tool. (There is an SY emulation in the Reaktor user community ... obviously without the rom data. But it's more fun to develop the generalized principles by patching things yourself.) Alchemy and other synths simply cannot come on this adventure.

The overall sound-design strategy you outlined was clear. Thank you. :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've owned a Mark 1 DX7 for 35 years this month...

 

The real key to using FM sounds in a modern context is effects. I've added an Eventide H9 pedal in line with my DX7 and OMG, it sounds like a million bucks. The cheesiest pad sound can sound quite heavenly and spine-tingling with the ShimmerVerb algorithm.

First, congrats on the 35th anniversary with an original DX7. That's awesome. :thu:

 

Yep, effect pedals and outboard processors are the secret sauce and make a huge difference in sound design with any type of KB instrument. ;)

 

Yes! Way to go Elson and Prof. Please tell us more about how you integrate the effects and the onboard sounds.

 

I admit that during the 1980s I was hugely in awe of Robert Fripp and Adrian Belew of King Crimson. With guitars and Eventides, it seemed they were doing way more interesting "synthesis" than the "synthesists" were. They would generate shimmering clouds of sounds, squeals, whines, grunts .... and epic melodies too. It seemed that for keyboardists at the time, sound design was bifurcated. First, you focused on oscillators, filters, operators, LFO's ADSRs, etc. Once you were done with that you added a bit of chorus or reverb or delay. Onboard keyboard effects were basic and you were not encouraged to see the entire signal chain as one piece of sound design. Nowadays thankfully we have good effects and you can even (for example) modulate your delay time with the very same lfo which is modulating your filter cutoff. So people can have an end to end view of sound. Just as the drum of the kettle drum (the resonator) is part of the instrument design, and the stone walls of a cathedral are intrinsic to the pipe organ installation ... it must be ok for synthesists to consider the entire signal chain. Please tell us more about what you are doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...