Can someone explain the DX7 to me?

[Jode]

I'm not a keyboard player, so I may be missing something, but... can anyone tell me what was so special about the DX7? I know it was the cat's pajamas when it came out, and that it appeared on every record made between 1983-90, but I don't think I've ever heard one make a sound that I particularly enjoyed listening to. That godawful chimey electric piano sound that got so overused back then still makes me want to retch to this day. Was it just simply the best anyone could do at the time, or did it have some redeeming qualities that an ignorant bassist like me just wouldn't appreciate? I just always thought they were tinny and horrible. Or have I just never gotten to hear the 'cool' sounds it can make?

[ksoper]

I never owned one. When the Roland JX-8P came out it was billed as the "DX7 killer." That may have been a little bold, but time tells the tale. The pads, strings, and brass were great. I still use my JX on recordings. That said, at the time, there was nothing that sounded quite as clear, punchy, and unique. Yes, it needed reverb, chorus, and delay. But it had its own voice. And the "digilog" dynths being cranked out by Korg and Roland weren't particularly exciting.

 

k.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Jode:

I'm not a keyboard player, so I may be missing something, but... can anyone tell me what was so special about the DX7?

It was revolutionary for a couple of reasons.

 

First of all, it used a type of synthesis unlike anything that was ever used in any commercially available synth. Every other synth available at the time used standard subtractive "analog" synthesis, in which different types of waveforms (square, sawtooth, sine, etc) were filtered to produce sounds. The DX7 used a type of additive synthesis known as FM to generate sound by combining sine waves to create complex waveforms - there was no filtering involved at all. Up to 6 sine waves were combined in 32 different algorithms - sometimes the sine waves were audible "carriers", and sometimes they were inaudible "modulators, doing nothing other than changing the wave shape of the carrier. Consequently, these synths were able to produce timbres unlike any other instrument available at the time. They were a serious bitch to program, though...

 

Also, they had 16 voices, which was unheard of at that time.

 

They also broke a major price barrier - they were $1995...a 6 voice Jupiter-6 sold a few hundred dollars more, and an 8 voice synth was even more than that.

 

However, the main thing that attracted folks to them was the sound, especially the metallic/percussive timbres like the bells, marimbas and that ubiquitous EP sound that seemed to be on every song recorded during that period. Personally, I kinda dug the DX picked bass sound - another signature FM tone.

 

Is that helpful?

 

dB

[burningbusch]

Some other aspects that would fall under revolutionary:

 

Certainly one of the first velocity sensitive synths.

 

Introduced aftertouch

 

Introduced breath control

 

The above controllers could be applied in very subtle ways to the patch. This was an extremely expressive synth at a time when most synths would not respond to velocity.

 

After a decade of saw/pulse/tri, it was the NEW sound.

 

Because of the polyphony and the DX Rhodes patches, many people were happy to dump their 150 lbs Rhodes pianos for the vastly lightly DX7.

 

Because of the complexity of the waveforms that could be generated it was easier to synthesize traditional instruments.

 

It was digital and everyone knew the future was digitial.

 

Introduced the modern synth interface, i.e. buttons and menus (for better or worse).

 

I'm pulling these from memory. Let me know if I'm off on any of the above.

 

Busch.

[Steve LeBlanc]

I hated playing gigs with a DX7...the sounds just weren't what I needed for regular comping with a band but you could get some great lead sounds...with a breath controller you could get really musical.

 

I never owned one...just borrowed them for a few gigs...had I owned a DX7 I might have found more use for it.

 

Love or hate it...there's no question it was revolutionary when it came out and not much compared to it for a few years.

[Addix Metzatricity]

Since this is already a thread about a pretty rudimentary question, I'm gonna ask one that's even more basic.

 

A couple of you mentioned 'breath' control.. Now, when I think of a breath controller, I think of something that looks like a clarinet.

 

But, in the Reason synths, there are expression options: Aftertouch, something, and BREATH...

 

Does this mean something different?

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by burningbusch:

Because of the complexity of the waveforms that could be generated it was easier to synthesize traditional instruments.

The flexibility of the algorithms was also a major contributor to the complex timbres it could produce.

 

For example, to synthesize a piano, you might choose the algorithm that organized the six operators into three stacks of two operators each (one carrier, one modulator). With the first stack, you could make the attack of the instrument. With the second stack, you could do the initial decay, and with the third stack, you could do the sustain/release.

 

Very powerful....

 

dB

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Addix Metzatricity:

A couple of you mentioned 'breath' control.. Now, when I think of a breath controller, I think of something that looks like a clarinet.

 

But, in the Reason synths, there are expression options: Aftertouch, something, and BREATH...

 

Does this mean something different?

Yes.

 

First of all, I believe that you're thinking of a WIND controller - that's the thing that looks (and is played) like a clarinet - a Yamaha WX-7 or Akai EWI would be examples of this. Whole different ball game.

 

A breath controller is a funny looking thing that you put in your mouth and blow into to basically produce a continuous controller effect just like aftertouch or a mod wheel, except it's controlled by your mouth, not your fingers. Combined with wheels, AT, foot control, etc it allows for a nice modicum of expression because of the nature of the force used to control it (your breath).

 

A good example of something to use it on is to control brightness when you're playing something like a harmonica patch.

 

IIRC, it has it's own dedicated cc#...2, right?

 

dB

[Addix Metzatricity]

Thanks Dave, that explains it perfectly...

 

So, if I don't play live (you know I don't), I really wouldn't get much of a benefit from a breath controller?

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Addix Metzatricity:

So, if I don't play live (you know I don't), I really wouldn't get much of a benefit from a breath controller?

It depends. Some people really like to use them even in the studio to emulate wind/brass instruments.

 

Me, I'd rather hire a sax player...

 

dB

[Addix Metzatricity]

Wind instruments scare me...

 

Give me strings any day.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by burningbusch:

Certainly one of the first velocity sensitive synths.

Good one, Bill.

 

I'm trying to remember what was the first velocity synth (not just one that responded to velocity - one with a keyboard that sent it)...I'm having a hard time coming up with one that's pre-DX7...

 

Anybody? Bueller?

 

dB

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Anybody? Bueller?

You piqued my curiosity, so I just spent awhile combing the web for the answer.

 

The earliest I could find was 1976's Yamaha CS-80.

 

http://www.kratzer.at/video/yamaha_cs80.jpg

 

Per the text on the site...

 

The Yamaha CS80 polyphonic Synthesizer was a development on the GX1 model at an affordable price range (£5,000 in 1976) and competing with several other early polyphonic synthesizers such as the ARP Omni and the Moog Polymoog. The CS80 was a complex polyphonic synthesizer with 16 oscillators, 32 filters, 32 envelopes allowing voices to be split and layered and stored in a six part memory allocation. The keyboard was velocity sensitive with poly-aftertouch sensitivity.

 

Bolding mine. I could be completely wrong that this was the earliest...I just couldn't think of or find anything earlier.

 

- Jeff

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Jeff the Weasel:

The earliest I could find was 1976's Yamaha CS-80.

Good one.

 

I've since recalled the Chroma as another early velocity synth...

 

dB

[Dan South]

I'd like to underscore the $1,999.00US price point. Remember that this was the era of $40,000 Fairlights and Synclaviers. Yamaha was selling some FM-based instruments at the time, but they were priced around $20,000 and they were NOT PROGRAMMABLE. Preset sounds only.

 

So, when the DX7 showed up with the SAME technology, was FULLY PROGRAMMABLE, had amazing (for the time) polyphony, created sounds that NO other affordable synth could make, and listed of under two grand, it set the synthesizer world on its ear. The analog synthesizer market effectively went into a come for ten years because of the DX7. It was THAT revolutionary.

 

Then, on top of that, Yamaha introduces a coupld of rack versions that contained either two or eight full DX7 synth engines in a rack mountable unit. Keep in mind that this was before the advent of the multitimbral synth. With a DX7 and a TX824 (I think that was the number), you could have the power of nine digital synths for about $7,000 list. Remember, until that time, the cheapest digital synths cost twenty grand, and they weren't programmable. Seven G's seemed like an incredible bargain.

 

Let's talk about the sound of the DX7 for a minute. If all you know of the DX7 is its presets and that over-exposed chime piano patch, you owe it to yourself to dig a little deeper. Listen to some Brian Eno records or records that he produced (U2's Unforgettable Fire, for instance). Eno coaxed some ridiculously beautiful and WARM sounds out of his DX's. Listen to the introduction of "Money For Nothing" by Dire Straits. Most of those warm layers were played on a DX7 or a DX1 (a DX7 engine with more front panel controls).

 

I've always loved the sound of the DX six operator synths - I hated the four-ops - and it tortured me that I couldn't afford one. That said, I am now in FM heaven with the FM7 soft synth from Native Instruments. I've been digging into the programming on this beast for the last couple of months, and it's beautiful. I get better analog sounds from it that I can get from many analog modeling synths, and the output stage is detailed and crystal clear (not so on the original hardware). Programming isn't nearly as difficult as I was led to believe, either. I grin from ear to ear every time I use the FM7. I learn more about it every week, and it's rapidly becoming on of my A-list instruments. Too bad the OS-X version is still months away.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by burningbusch:

Introduced aftertouch

The ARP Quadra had aftertouch.

 

dB

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by Dan South:

TX824 (I think that was the number)

TX816.

 

I never understood that, since the rack with two modules was called the TX802, which made sense. Why wasn't the rack with 8 modules called the TX808?

 

Probably to avoid being confused with the TR-808, huh?

 

dB

[Dan South]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Originally posted by Dan South:

TX824 (I think that was the number)

TX816

 

dB

Oh, yeah. I couldn't afford one of THOSE, either.

[Bucktunes]

Originally posted by Jode:

I don't think I've ever heard one make a sound that I particularly enjoyed listening to...Or have I just never gotten to hear the 'cool' sounds it can make?

Scan the cable channels for old "Miami Vice" reruns, especially the ones from around `84-`86. Or just pick up Jan Hammer's "Escape From Television" CD. He used the DX7 for some really cool sounds during the incidental music. Not just his signature screaming lead guitar sounds, but lots of cool sounds that sound like a cross between mallet and plucked steel strings.

 

Also, FWIW, the DX1 was actually two DX7's under the hood with a 76 key weighted keyboard.

 

As far as the DX7's influence; wasn't it also the first synth with a spring-loaded pitch wheel?

 

Peace all,

Steve

[Tusker]

It was successful because keyboard players up to that point, hadn't had anything percussive they could play. Yes they could haul a rhodes or a cp80 but in the synth department, there was very little with the kind of attacks and response that cut through. The expensive analog poly-synths (Prophet, Oberheim) were beginning to be perceived as thick and cloying and the cheap one oscillator digilog and digitally controlled analogs (Juno 6, DW8000) were perceived as lightweight.

 

Well for the price of a cheap digilog, you could get something that allowed you to comp for goodness sake. Ok it was marimbas and tinny electric pianos but they had a crystal clarity to them that made people go wow!

 

At least that how I perceived the period. I remember auditioning a dx7 and a jx8p and for me, the jx won hands down. (I like thick cloying sounds ... I'm a Tony Banks fan remember. ) I was only sorry it wasn't an Obie.

 

Cheers,

 

Jerry

[Jode]

Okay, guys, I feel educated now. Just as I suspected, its redeeming qualities are lost on a non-programmer like me. I was aware that it was a watershed for FM synthesis - I just thought that FM synthesis most usually sounded like doo-doo. Oh well, if the intro to "Money For Nothing" is a DX7, then maybe they're not so bad after all. All I know is poking around on one in a music store and saying to myself, "Ugh." As for breath controllers, I do know enough to know that the synth lead on Lionel Richie's "You Are" uses a breath controller, because I saw his synth player do it on SNL about a hundred years ago. I remember thinking, "That's cool."

 

Maybe we should start a "Cool DX7 recordings" thread, like the Hammond, Minimoog, etc. ones we have, and feed me some more words to eat.

[eric]

Maybe we should start a "Cool DX7 recordings" thread, like the Hammond, Minimoog, etc. ones we have, and feed me some more words to eat.

Jode, that thread already exists here:

 

Legendary DX7 Recordings

 

I remember the DX7 as being one of the first truly expressive instruments. I now have grown to despise the ubiquitous tiney Rhodes sound, but when it first came out, that sound was great! Very expressive and a better EP than could be done on other synths at the time.

 

Regards,

Eric

[Steve LeBlanc]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Originally posted by Addix Metzatricity:

So, if I don't play live (you know I don't), I really wouldn't get much of a benefit from a breath controller?

It depends. Some people really like to use them even in the studio to emulate wind/brass instruments.

 

Me, I'd rather hire a sax player...

 

dB

Well, as a keyboard fan you have to at least check out what some guys did with it. Russell Ferrante comes to mind...check out some of that early Yellowjackets stuff...he really puts some nice vibe into that synth using a breath controller.

 

I used to like putting a DX7 through a distortion pedal...that with a breath controller can be fun.

[waveterm]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Originally posted by Dan South:

TX824 (I think that was the number)

TX816.

 

I never understood that, since the rack with two modules was called the TX802, which made sense. Why wasn't the rack with 8 modules called the TX808?

dB

No, the two-module version was called TX-216. Hence TX-816 for eight modules.

 

The TX-802 was a multitimbral version of the DX-7II

[waveterm]

Originally posted by Bucktunes:

As far as the DX7's influence; wasn't it also the first synth with a spring-loaded pitch wheel?

[/QB]

The PPG Wave 2.2 had it in -82 and the PPG Wave 2 in 1981 !

 

I like all things blue

[Dan South]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Originally posted by Dan South:

TX824 (I think that was the number)

TX816.

 

I never understood that, since the rack with two modules was called the TX802, which made sense. Why wasn't the rack with 8 modules called the TX808?

 

Probably to avoid being confused with the TR-808, huh?

 

dB

TX-816 = 8 modules or 16 voices each. Given that a five voice Prophet cost upwards of four grand, the TX-816 had a LOT of voices for $5k! Yamaha apparently wanted to showcase value per voice when they settled on a name.

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by waveterm:

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

Originally posted by Dan South:

TX824 (I think that was the number)

TX816.

 

I never understood that, since the rack with two modules was called the TX802, which made sense. Why wasn't the rack with 8 modules called the TX808?

dB

No, the two-module version was called TX-216. Hence TX-816 for eight modules.

 

The TX-802 was a multitimbral version of the DX-7II

Duh. Of course, you're totally right.

 

So many instruments, so many numbers...a brother can get confused...

 

dB

[Synthmatic]

The Polymoog had velocity sensitivity.

 

I heard that Stanford University, the holder of the FM patent, showed the technology to some organ and synth manufacturers in the U.S. but they weren't interested. Yamaha was, so they benefited. With their manufacturing and marketing they probably were the only one who could have pulled it off.

 

The great thing was what the original DX-7 came with:

A foot pedal

A foot switch

A RAM cartridge

2 ROM cartridges

A sheet music holder

 

Too bad someone told them: "What are you doing?!! You can sell these things as after market accessories and make more money!!!" Yep, after that no more extra goodies.

[burningbusch]

While other synths might have had velocity and aftertouch prior to the DX, the DX put everything together (MIDI, velocity, AT, etc.) in one affordable package. After the DX you had to have those if you wanted to sell your synth. Plus, because of FM and the deep programmability, velocity not only made the sound louder, but could be programmed to make it brighter, change the envelope, etc.

 

Also, while the DX is known for the percussive bell tones it can produce standard saw/pulse stuff as well. Granted it doesn't sounds as FAT as the real thing, for gigging cover-band keyboard players it was often good enough. Good enough so that they could sell their behemoth, expensive analogs, kill their string synth (remember those gems?) and dump their Rhodes. Any wonder why a few years later Rhodes, Moog, ARP, Sequential were all gone.

 

Busch.

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

Originally posted by Synthmatic:

I heard that Stanford University, the holder of the FM patent, showed the technology to some organ and synth manufacturers in the U.S. but they weren't interested.

The way it worked was this...

 

In the late '50s, a composer named John Chowning was studying in Paris and got exposed to Stockhausen and Pierre Boulez, so he got into electronic music. He arrived at Stanford in 1962.

 

In 1967, he was screwing around with techniques to make high-speed vibratos in synth music. To do this, he was working with two oscillators, modulating one sine wave with the output of the other. While he didn't get the vibrato sound he was looking for orginally, he did find something else entirely: FM synthesis.

 

So, he took the idea to Stanford's technology licensing department. They did indeed shop the idea to first to Hammond, Wurlitzer and Lowry, who all rejected it. Yamaha didn't.

 

The funny thing is that Chowning was later fired by Stanford for not doing his original gig (music composition and teaching). When Yamaha came back to Stanford to license the technology for another 10 years, they were embarrassed and quickly rehired Chowning as a research guy and then a full professor.

 

Chowning continued to compose tunes and received acclaim for a few of his electronic works. I think he's still associated with Stanford, though no longer actively teaches. I may be wrong.

 

- Jeff