cherry audio gx-80 Team Test: Cherry Audio GX-80

[EscapeRocks]

Some further thoughts:

 

After spending too many overnight hours playing with the GX-80, I began to program it and the Cherry Audio ELKA as if they were my only synths for my gig rig.

 

So far, with the exception of piano, they cover everything I need.  I am not a software engineer, so I can't say how they do it, yet so far in my testing, the GX-80 seems to have a more robust basic tone when doing A/B to similar sound I currently get from Arturia Jup V or Pro-V, and those 2 aren't bad at all either.

 

Side note on Cherry Audio:    I got the rackmode effect stack when it was on sale last week or so

At my gig last Saturday, my piano was PianoTeq Standard YC5 (modified to my taste, running thru their Rackmode 10-band EQ, with just a hint(very little) of their 12-stage Phaser. Instantly humanized the PianTeq

 

 

 

 

[tommym]

8 hours ago, jerrythek said:

OK, here's an example of what I am finding I like to do with the Ring Mod, by playing it in real-time (as an overdub) to a lead sound. This is a late-night little jam/improv I threw together. Everything is from the GX-80 except the drums/percussion, which comes from Stylus RMX (Spectrasonics). I didn't spend any time trying to master it...just living in the moment. You can hear everything from the tremolo effect, to full gonk, as Dr. MM taught us. I hope you enjoy.

 

Ring Mod Mood

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow, that's an imagination-bending demonstration of some of the unusually expressive things this instrument can do. Thanks, Jerry.

[Dr Mike Metlay]

Historical Perspective: Part 1

 

Just for fun, here's some information on the synth whose design elements make the GX-80 plug-in so unique: the Yamaha GX-1. A lot of people talk about the GX-1 in vague and worshiping terms, but very few people actually know what's going on inside it. So let me school y'all.

 

Full disclosure: a lot of this comes from the GX-1 chapter in my book SYNTH GEMS 1, which was vetted for accuracy by well-known musician and writer Gordon Reid, who owns one of them. (Yes, he owns a GX-1 and keeps it in good repair himself. Long story in there, but not for now.)

 

Origin story: The  1975 keyboard family welcomes a really disturbing new baby

 

As Craig pointed out earlier, the GX-1 does not come from the world of synthesizers. Keep in mind that in 1975, there was no such thing as a polyphonic synthesizer in the sense we know today. (Siddown, Poindexter, I know that the Oberheim Four-Voice came out the same year, but the tech behind the GX-1 existed years earlier.)

 

To a keyboardist of any time period after the invention of keyboards, "polyphony" was a very straightforward thing: you pressed a key, you heard a sound. It didn't matter how many keys you pressed at once, each one of them made its own sound. That's how every keyboard ever made worked, except for monophonic synthesizers, and they weren't real musical instruments anyway. (Siddown, Poindexter, and learn to recognize sarcasm before that cute little vein in your forehead pops.)

 

Full polyphony was available in the form of specific types of analog sound generation – most notably top-octave divide-down synthesis, which created plenty of polyphony but with limited articulation of individual notes – but a synthesizer with unique articulation for each of its multiple voices was unheard of.

 

By the way, top-octave divide-down was the methodology behind string ensemble keyboards such as the Freeman String Symphonizer, ARP/Solina String Ensemble and Omni/Omni II, the Roland RS-09 and SH-09, the Korg Delta and Lambda, etc. They are a fascinating topic in and of themselves, but that's for a another post in a different thread. Where was I? Oh yes.

 

In that era, mono synths and string machines aside, there were two electrified keyboards that ruled the roost in modern music: the electric piano and the electric organ. They were heavy, sometimes temperamental, and expensive, but they were what keyboardists knew and used.

 

The vast majority of research in electric pianos was to make something affordable and portable that sounded and played something like what an acoustic piano might sound like maybe if you crossed your fingers and wished real hard. However, because the organ was designed to create a whole bunch of different kinds of sounds, people focused on the latest and greatest organs the same way we focus on the latest and greatest synthesizers. The organ was everywhere: homes, clubs, theaters, churches, you name it. Hell, you could go to a pizza parlor and have the organist take requests while you ate! Whoever could build the best organ would rule the modern music world, and every organ manufacturer wanted a piece of that very big pie.

 

That included Yamaha, whose line of Electone organs rose up to challenge the big names in organ construction like Hammond and Baldwin. The Electones had been around since the late 1950s, and they served as the vehicle for new technologies that were intended to build a better organ... while still providing a familiar user experience for the organist.

 

So there's Craig's original point, in somewhat more detail: the GX-1 wasn't marketed as a synthesizer, because "polyphonic synthesizer" was an oxymoron. It was the latest and greatest flagship Electone organ, designed to highlight new technology that had started to appear as early as 1970 (look at a picture of the EX-42 and gasp in disbelief – no, that's not a GX-1, it's five years older).

 

As far as organists were concerned, it was a pretty impressive new beastie, even if it was limited in some ways, and had a few bizarre new ideas that they weren't super sure about. But it hit the world of tech-forward music like a rocket-assisted runaway train hauling a full load of jet fuel. (There actually was such a thing, but that's another story for another post in another thread, probably on another website. Where was I? Oh yes.)

 

So that sets the stage: an organ designed to give organists new expressive capabilities, that just so happened to be built around concepts we would view today as "synthesis". The fact that it was massively polyphonic (with a voice count not to be equaled by another analog synth for a very, very, VERY long time) with expressive capabilities essentially unknown in a modern keyboard (which must have seemed magical)... AND with user-editable timbres that were also user-programmable (wait, WHAT?!), was pretty much lost on its intended audience. But who the hell gives a rip what organists think anyway? (Siddown, Poindexter.)

 

Next time: the tech. Prepare to have your minds blown. (I may momentarily digress to teach you a bit about the bizarre envelopes on the GX-1 and CS-80... which are not bizarre at all, once you get the idea of what they're supposed to do.)

 

[cherryDan]

That's a great writeup, Mike. I just want to add that Yamaha doesn't use the word "synthesizer" anywhere in their documentation of the GX-1. In fat, they refer to the analog synthesis technology as "natural sound," a new kind of feature for an organ.

 

Interestingly, the GX-1 isn't particularly great at making traditional organ sounds. You have at most four sine waves per key (if you link the top and bottom keyboards together), so making authentic big 9-drawbar Hammond organ sounds is out of the question.

 

Your Synth Gems 1 book was a great source of information for us at Cherry Audio, as we first explored what made the GX-1 unique. I have to admit that I had all sorts of misconceptions about what a GX-1 was at the start of this project, and I get the feeling that many other people do, too. People expect it to be the most incredible synthesizer they're ever seen. In fact, it's a rather limited preset-based organ, with important performance controls at your fingertips, but absolutely no synthesizer parameter controls. Plus, there are only 10 preset sounds per keyboard.

 

But it unquestionably led to the creation of the CS-80, and that's an incredibly impressive instrument.

 

Dan

[KuruPrionz]

Well, this review is above and beyond (and no, I am NOT Poindexter... 🤣).

I don't really play keyboards to speak of, nothing against them but I'm too busy playing guitar. 

That said, today I bought, downloaded and mostly installed the Cherry Audio GX-80 on my primary recording computer. 

The first time I open it a Cherry Audio window will appear and I must put magic stuff in that to authorize my new synth. Not there yet and it may be a while, my condo is still being repaired for water damage 11 months later. It looks like they are getting close though. Meanwhile, I didn't put it on my trusty laptop, which is getting kind of ful of stuffs. 

 

Anyway, I HAD to have it, the sounds are too cool. It will be fun to see how it responds to the Fishman Triple Play or one of the softwares that Craig A recommended but I haven't gotten for my guitar yet. And I do have friends who can play keys, and keys they can play on. 

 

It amazes me that I can have the sounds of a keyboard that is made of unobtainium and therefore priceless and another rare bird that fetches $60k if you can pry one away from the current owner and it's just $60 for all those sounds. I like that!!!!!

[Dave Bryce]

28 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

Well, this review is above and beyond

 

Thanks…but we still haven’t gotten to the meat yet. 😏 😁

 

We’ll dig in pretty deeply to the functionality of each section of the synth shortly.  Perhaps there may be some more audio examples - such as the fabulous “Ring Mod Mood” demo brother Jerry laid on us a few posts back - and maybe even some video ones.  🤓

 

We also anticipate/hope that those of you who are reading this will ask us questions and hopefully play along at home, either with your own copy or with the demo version, which you can download from the GX-80’s product page on the Cherry Audio site.  

 

Might even be cool if some programs get written while we’re doing this review, which we’d be pleased and proud to make into an MPN bank and post in our free Downloads area. 😎

 

🥳

 

dB

[MRBarton]

What I find very funny is that Yamaha touted the "programmability" of the GX-1 as an incredible innovation.  After all, who can program an organ sound?  Unheard of.  To say that the process was long and tedious would be an understatement, and you had to go through it twice to make a single preset.  I'm sure you guys will cover that process in detail, but I just wanted to point out that what we regard as unthinkably inconvenient and laborious was being advertised as an absolute boon.  Also, the GX-1 manual is funny on another level.  It's full of little cartoon illustrations and simplistic explanations, like the instructions for a new toy for a toddler -- a $60,000 toy.

 

Attached here for your amusement.

 

--mb

 

Yamaha GX-1 Owners Manual.pdf

[jazzpiano88]

Keith playing the GX1:

 

 

 

 

[Christian Matthew Cullen]

Congrats Dan and the brilliant Cherry Audio team of developers and sound designers that made the GX-80 such an incredibly sounding and expressive instrument! 
 

 I had the utmost pleasure sound designing for it, and I'm telling you - IT’S A BEAST!

 

But Does It Synthwave?! Here is my new track " DRONES IN THE MIDDLE EAST " that was made exclusively with factory presets I created for Cherry Audio (Sounds Famous Bank) , and are included with Cherry Audio's GX-80 Software Synthesizer:

 

 

 

[Dave Bryce]

49 minutes ago, Christian Matthew Cullen said:

Congrats Dan and the brilliant Cherry Audio team of developers and sound designers that made the GX-80 such an incredibly sounding and expressive instrument! 
 

 I had the utmost pleasure sound designing for it, and I'm telling you - IT’S A BEAST!

 

Good to see you here, brother!  Hope all is well with you and yours.  

 

Killer demo - thank you for posting!

 

dB

[Reverend Rhythm]

46 minutes ago, Christian Matthew Cullen said:

But Does It Synthwave?! Here is my new track " DRONES IN THE MIDDLE EAST " that was made exclusively with factory presets I created for Cherry Audio (Sounds Famous Bank) , and are included with Cherry Audio's GX-80 Software Synthesizer:

 

Yes!  It most definitely can Synthwave!  Beautiful demo.

[Reezekeys]

1 hour ago, MRBarton said:

Also, the GX-1 manual is funny on another level.  It's full of little cartoon illustrations and simplistic explanations

 

This one caught my eye - I've seen plenty of woofers and tweeters, but not a single "squawker"!

[mcgoo]

I wonder how well the ribbon on my Polybrute would work as a controller for the GX-80's ribbon. Perhaps Dr. Fortner can weigh in on that.

 

@Dave BryceI'd love to hear more about his the Raven is working as a controller. 

[KuruPrionz]

23 minutes ago, Reezekeys said:

 

This one caught my eye - I've seen plenty of woofers and tweeters, but not a single "squawker"!

I've seen "Squawkers". Now these days we have "weefers" and "twooters" - small speakers that can't quite do anything much. 

I sent a friend a recording I was working on, he played it for me on his cell phone and said "I like that I can hear the bass guitar."

Well, the high frequencies anyway... sort of...

[Dave Bryce]

4 minutes ago, mcgoo said:

I wonder how well the ribbon on my Polybrute would work as a controller for the GX-80's ribbon. Perhaps Dr. Fortner can weigh in on that.

 

@Dave BryceI'd love to hear more about his the Raven is working as a controller. 

 

What do you wanna know?  It’s basically a giant hi-res touch screen.  You flick an on-screen switch/paddle or push a button, it reacts the way you’d expect. Same with the ribbon…

 

dB

[mcgoo]

2 minutes ago, Dave Bryce said:

 

What do you wanna know?  It’s basically a giant hi-res touch screen.  You flick an on-screen switch or push a button, it reacts the way you’d expect. Same with the ribbon…

 

dB

Hmmm, well, that covers the basics! I guess my biggest question may be one only I can answer for myself, but I'd love to hear your take... With the touchscreen's ability to directly access the controls, is the feel when programming / tweaking as natural, or more natural than having controls assigned to a midi controller? 

[Anderton]

6 minutes ago, mcgoo said:

@Dave BryceI'd love to hear more about his the Raven is working as a controller. 

 

Well, I'm not Dave Bryce, but I'm using a conventional multitouch Planar touch screen. It works as you'd expect, with one exception. In Focus mode, moving a slider can also move the focused view. So I hold the window in place while moving controls.

 

An instrument with this level of editability really benefits from multitouch. Even working on the full-size UI is surprisingly agile. And it also feels more like programming a hardware synthesizer. 

 

One of the comments I hear from people is that when using touch, their fingers cover over the control they're moving. However, once you touch a control, you can move your finger sideways and out of the way. The only requirement is that you not lift your finger off the screen between the time you touch the control, and the time you start adjusting the parameter.

[Nathanael_I]

Should be very very nice played from the Osmose. Likely an ideal companion to the Eagen matrix digital engine. 

[EscapeRocks]

I finished the GX-80 Ribbon control on my iPad MIDI Designer Pro. 
 

It took a little bit dial in the specific parameters to make it work the way I want it to work.
First, the connection: I create and ad hoc Wi-Fi network on the MBP, and connect my iPad to that. 

 

Here’s the main screen.
 

This is my Mainstage/GigPerformer setup. 
I use it mostly to launch (play) our walk on track backstage. 
 

Now to the ribbon specifics. 
It is set to max 256 steps

I set the default to 50% on this ribbon. I set it to snap back to this when I ‘release’ it.

While this is a bit like a spring loaded pitch wheel, it is much more expressive. 
Just rolling my finger while pressing the ribbon gives a bit of vibrato.  A bit like a Roli Seaboard. 
 

Tapping it works amazingly well. I can hold a note on my controller, and tap the iPad with 1 or more fingers.  I can mimic guitar-like hammer ons. 
 

Anyhow. Just wanted to share 

 

[Dave Bryce]

1 hour ago, EscapeRocks said:

I finished the GX-80 Ribbon control on my iPad MIDI Designer Pro. 
 

It took a little bit dial in the specific parameters to make it work the way I want it to work.
First, the connection: I create and ad hoc Wi-Fi network on the MBP, and connect my iPad to that. 

 

Here’s the main screen.
 

This is my Mainstage/GigPerformer setup. 
I use it mostly to launch (play) our walk on track backstage. 
 

Now to the ribbon specifics. 
It is set to max 256 steps

I set the default to 50% on this ribbon. I set it to snap back to this when I ‘release’ it.

While this is a bit like a spring loaded pitch wheel, it is much more expressive. 
Just rolling my finger while pressing the ribbon gives a bit of vibrato.  A bit like a Roli Seaboard. 
 

Tapping it works amazingly well. I can hold a note on my controller, and tap the iPad with 1 or more fingers.  I can mimic guitar-like hammer ons. 
 

Anyhow. Just wanted to share 

 

Nicely done, brother!!! 

 

 

dB

[MRBarton]

 

So, too young to remember squawkers, eh?  We call them midrange speakers now.

What about this?

 

See that cone inside the cone?  That's called a, wait for it.......a whizzer.  They used to be very popular and appeared on large woofers as well.

 

--mb

[Motif88]

On 11/25/2022 at 1:31 PM, Dr Mike Metlay said:

Just for fun, here's some information on the synth whose design elements make the GX-80 plug-in so unique: the Yamaha GX-1. A lot of people talk about the GX-1 in vague and worshiping terms, but very few people actually know what's going on inside it. So let me school y'all.

 

Full disclosure: a lot of this comes from the GX-1 chapter in my book SYNTH GEMS 1, which was vetted for accuracy by well-known musician and writer Gordon Reid, who owns one of them. (Yes, he owns a GX-1 and keeps it in good repair himself. Long story in there, but not for now.)

 

Having watched most of Dr. Mike’s videos on the Hydrasynth coupled with the release of the GX-80, I will let my wife know that Mike has heavily influenced my combined Christmas & Birthday present to myself in the form of the Hydrasynth Deluxe with a BFCM deal at $1499..Sweetwater payment options make it easier to justify.

[MRBarton]

What a coinkidink.  I just treated myself to a Hydrasynth Deluxe for Black Friday as well.  Great minds and all that.  Can't wait till it gets here and I can play the GX-80 like it was meant to be played.

[Anderton]

Thread Progress Report

 

First of all, a huge thank-you to Cherry Audio and everyone participating (and lurking, too)!!

 

To make this thread as informative as possible, you'll note some changes and edits. For example, there was a question about how to control the ribbon controller. There were a lot of GREAT responses, but they were scattered around in various pages. So, I consolidated them all as answers in the post asking the question. This approach seems much more convenient.

 

Also, I started adding sub-heads, like "Ring Modulator Deep Dive" or whatever. These should make it easier to skim the thread to find topics of interest, or to re-visit specific posts. For example, if you get really involved in programming the Ring Modulator, you might want to review the material that's already been presented.

 

Finally, I've tried to keep posts and responses as close together as possible. If some of the short posts in between were not absolutely necessary (like David Bryce saying "great job, brother!"), I've hidden (not deleted!) them to make for a more compact reading experience. However, this kind of editing happens only after posts have been up for a while. I think those initial reactions are an important part of the discussion, but over time, hiding them makes the thread more manageable, easier to read, and puts the focus on the more recent posts.

 

I hope you find these changes helpful! Thanks again for your participation. Now, back to the review.

 

(And yes, I'll probably hide this post in a week or so...it's just timely right now, to explain why the thread might be looking a bit different.)

 

 

 

[Robert Saint John]

18 hours ago, MRBarton said:

What a coinkidink.  I just treated myself to a Hydrasynth Deluxe for Black Friday as well.  Great minds and all that.  Can't wait till it gets here and I can play the GX-80 like it was meant to be played.

 

haHA! I could only treat myself to the original Hydrasynth this weekend before that sale disappeared. Most expensive controller I've ever purchased, but I hear it includes a nifty synthesizer as well. Who knew Cherry Audio folks would give ASM a sales bump, all for the sake of GX-80? 😁

 

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

First of all, a huge thank-you to Cherry Audio and everyone participating (and lurking, too)!!

 

Guilty, until now!

 

[jerrythek]

GX-80 Ranks Overview

 

OK, let’s start to dive into the panel and voice architecture of this awesome instrument.

 

Looking across the top of the panel are two rows of identical parameters (labeled I and II) that are the heart of the CS/GX-80’s voice architecture:

 

 

In CS-speak each of these are called a Rank, which is a carry-over from Yamaha’s organ-centric lineage. Each of them is a complete synthesizer “voice”, with what at first glance looks like a traditional VCO (oscillator) feeding into a VCF (filter), which is then routing to a VCA (amplifier) for final output. As you dig in deeper, though, you will find a number of unique attributes to each part of this topology. Complicating our quick tour (not that I’m complaining) is the fact that Cherry Audio has merged in a number of parameters that were part of the GX-1, and they thwart my desire to show the voice in as simple terms as possible. These additional parameters are all colored orange to indicate their GX-1 origins.

 

The Oscillator

 

Zooming in to the oscillator section itself, you encounter some of this issue right away. Normally you might think you could go from left to right to understand the controls, but that means you’d be starting with Pulse Width and Pulse Width Modulation parameters before you’ve even encountered the oscillator itself. So let me start by highlighting the oscillator section that comes from the CS-80 first, and then we’ll look at the GX-1 additions. Here are the CS-80 oscillator parameters highlighted in red:

 

 

Starting with the middle highlighted parameters you have a choice of a square/pulse wave and/or a sawtooth. Yes, you can use both at the same time. The section to the left of it is the pulse width control (at 50% it is a square wave), then the amount of modulation you wish to apply, and finally the LFO speed to create the pulse width modulation. Moving to the far right you have a noise generator, which produces white noise.

 

Now, let’s focus on the GX-1 parameters that were added. These are highly unique things that we don’t usually find in an analog synthesizer’s oscillator arsenal.

 

 

To the left of the pulse wave rocker switch we have another pulse wave control, with a volume slider so it can be mixed in. It is labeled HPF because this oscillator is run through a dedicated high-pass filter, whose cutoff is controlled by the slider to its left. What a unique concept, capable of producing some really signature timbres. I’ve got to experiment with modulating/automating that cutoff within my DAW – makes me want a Mod Matrix to be able to route an envelope or LFO to that parameter! But I am getting ahead of myself…

 

To the right of the sawtooth rocker switch is another sawtooth, this one is routed through a band-pass filter. Again, très cool idea. To the right of that is a triangle waveform, pitched an octave higher than the other choices. Have you been keeping count? That’s five waveforms available at the same time, plus noise, per oscillator, meaning it all only takes up one note/voice of polyphony. Keen-eyed observers no doubt notice that there is no tuning control found here, other than the triangle wave being pitched up an octave. In another of the CS/GX/GX-80’s nods to its organ lineage, that tuning is found down in the center of the panel (to the left of the Tone Selector/preset switches), labeled in organ footage terminology.

 

 

 

The Filter(s)

 

 

The GX-80 offers dual 12dB per octave filters, one is a resonant low-pass design, the other a resonant high-pass. Note that the low-pass filter does not self-resonate. Once you start using both of them you are in effect controlling a band-pass filter, and this is certainly a signature part of the synth’s sound. At first glance the filter labels might confuse you, since they all have text marking above them for High, and below for Low. This is just for the slider value/position. Pay closer attention to the bottom text, which more clearly indicates what is what.

 

To the left of the filter sliders is a rocker switch to select between the traditional CS-80 filter and the slightly different GX-1 filter. Dr. Metlay will have more to say on this shortly.

 

The next five sliders are all for the ADR envelope control over the filter. This design is one of the more confusing aspects of the synth’s design, and again, the good doctor will be here shortly to walk you through it. These are followed by a switch to invert the envelope shape for the filter, another capability drawn from the GX-1.

 

I’m including the last two parameters in the filter section, although by design they are labeled as part of the amplifier section. The first is VCF level, which is a mixer stage controlling the complete oscillator topology post filter. A pretty non-standard design, right?

 

The last is a post-filter sine wave, which means that if you’ve been keeping score from before, that’s actually six waveforms available at the same time! This addition actually makes a lot of sense, considering that with all the high-pass and band-pass filtering going on, it could be nice to bring back in some clean fundamental tone to thicken/warm back up your sound. And now the filter level control makes a bit more sense, as you can balance the two elements to your taste.

 

The Amplifier

 

As is to be expected, the next stage of the topology is an amplifier.

 

 

 

A traditional ADSR envelope is available to shape your levels, along with a total level for the voice output. This is followed by a pan control, something that was not available on either the CS-80 or GX-1, but is a logical and welcome addition.

 

Touch Response

 

It is astounding to realize that back in 1976 Yamaha produced a synth (hell, any type of keyboard!) that was touch, or velocity sensitive. Even more mind-boggling is that it also included aftertouch, and polyphonic aftertouch to boot. The Moog Polymoog, released a year earlier was velocity sensitive, but it was a simpler divide-down design, not the fully articulated polyphonic design of the CS-80. The Rhodes Chroma (originally developed by ARP, but never put into production by them) was released in 1982, with velocity sensitivity, and Sequential Circuits released a velocity and channel aftertouch synth, the Prophet T8 in 1983. The same year Yamaha released the DX7.  So these features being available in 1976 is groundbreaking indeed.

 

Sorry, I got carried away – back on topic. The last stage of the Rank architecture is control for the velocity (called Initial) and aftertouch.

 

 

Velocity can be routed to the filter (called Brilliance) and to the amplifier (called Level). The same is true for the poly aftertouch. There are some other places that velocity and aftertouch can be routed, which we’ll get to in due time.

 

A Perfect Pair (of Pairs)

 

The CS-80 has the same dual Rank design as what you are seeing on the screen. Each Rank is capable of 8-note polyphony, so when layered together you don’t lose any polyphony: you then have 16 oscillators layered to still deliver the 8-note polyphony.

 

Both Ranks can be programmed much the same, detuned and saved as a Preset. Detuned… where? Look to the right of the Master Pitch knob in the row below, that’s where!

 

 

 

Or they can be used to produce different timbral elements that are combined into a final sound. Note that Yamaha seemed to use the term Channel and Rank interchangeably, but only used the term CH (channel) on the front panel screening.

 

The GX-80 goes further than this, drawing from the GX-1, with its dual manuals each with two Ranks per manual, to create a four Rank/Channel design which can create more sophisticated, detailed and massive layers, or be used for a split keyboard design.

 

More on that to come shortly.

 

[AnotherScott]

4 hours ago, Robert Saint John said:

haHA! I could only treat myself to the original Hydrasynth this weekend before that sale disappeared. Most expensive controller I've ever purchased, but I hear it includes a nifty synthesizer as well. Who knew Cherry Audio folks would give ASM a sales bump, all for the sake of GX-80? 😁

 

I basically just bought the Hydrasynth Explorer for the same reason... i.e. largely as a small, lightweight MIDI controller with poly AT. And not even an extravagance if it spares me from wanting the Osmose. ;-) Interesting video here...

 

 

 

[Floyd Tatum]

I think this is going to be my Christmas present (to myself) this year.....

 

 

[mate stubb]

The manual wasn't entirely clear - can you get HPF pulse without regular pulse and HPF saw without regular saw?

[Dr Mike Metlay]

On 11/25/2022 at 3:23 PM, cherryDan said:

That's a great writeup, Mike. I just want to add that Yamaha doesn't use the word "synthesizer" anywhere in their documentation of the GX-1. In fat, they refer to the analog synthesis technology as "natural sound," a new kind of feature for an organ.

 

Interestingly, the GX-1 isn't particularly great at making traditional organ sounds. You have at most four sine waves per key (if you link the top and bottom keyboards together), so making authentic big 9-drawbar Hammond organ sounds is out of the question.

 

Your Synth Gems 1 book was a great source of information for us at Cherry Audio, as we first explored what made the GX-1 unique. I have to admit that I had all sorts of misconceptions about what a GX-1 was at the start of this project, and I get the feeling that many other people do, too. People expect it to be the most incredible synthesizer they're ever seen. In fact, it's a rather limited preset-based organ, with important performance controls at your fingertips, but absolutely no synthesizer parameter controls. Plus, there are only 10 preset sounds per keyboard.

 

But it unquestionably led to the creation of the CS-80, and that's an incredibly impressive instrument.

 

Dan

Actually, Dan, it was fully programmable at the voice-parameter level, as I explain in my next post. You just needed to have an optional pair of hardware devices that many people didn't bother buying, because the presets sounded so good and the manual-level and global-level controls could do so much with them. Read on...!