Would you rather have FM7 or DX plug-in board?

[tdm71]

I asked this over at the Motif site and was hoping to get some feedback from you guys: Which would you rather have and why?? I know it comes down to my ears, but your thoughts are appreciated.

 

Also, Does the FM7 load the SAME patches that the DX plug-in board has/can load??

 

THANKS

[Ski 1642606170]

Sorry, but for about the same money, I'd much rather have a DX200! Better yet, an FS1R (which I DO own), though that's at least double the price of the others.

 

The DX200 adds modeled analog filters to the std Yamaha 6 op FM engine. It also has some good sampled drum sounds onboard. With all the knobs, there's a lot of realtime control never before seen on an FM synth, and it's a blast to play.

 

After the DX200, I'd probably choose the PLG150DX card for my Motif, rather than FM7. The card is like the original DX7, and doesn't have any of the nice new features that FM7 has. However, I think it's way more convenient having the card in my Motif, especially if I gig. Plus, I can use all the Motif effects on the output from the card. Effects is one area where I feel FM7 is sorely lacking. Granted, you don't expect a LOT of effects on a softsynth like FM7, but I found the quality of the FM7 effects to be rather poor. To be fair, that's a subjective judgement. It's also probably not fair to compare the effects on an inexpensive softsynth to those on one of Yamaha's flagship synths. But anyway, effects quantity and quality is another reason that I'd still choose the PLG150DX card over FM7, even though FM7 has more operators and other features not on the PLG150DX.

 

To address your last question, both FM7 and the PLG150DX can load patches from the original DX7.

[RABid]

FM7 can load DX7 patches. I have both FM7 and the DX200 and use FM7 much more. DX200 is nice if you want to avoid CPU load on the computer and I normally use it in the composition stage where I tend to stick to hardware. But FM7 has some beautiful patches. I think the choice would really depend on if you prefer to work with hardware or software. If you want to take it on stage, the choice would be the expantion board. They are close enough in price and function to make either one a good choice.

 

Robert

[Jeebus]

Just get the DX plugin board, and a "free" copy of FM7 and you're good to go.

[RABid]

Originally posted by The Jeeebus:

Just get the DX plugin board, and a "free" copy of FM7 and you're good to go.

So you are saying he should steal the software?

 

Robert

[tdm71]

Guys THANKS!! Giging is NOT an option for me (I'm a songwriter) and I would have no other sofsynths.

 

I have a stock Mac G4 733. Anyone know what FM7 would sound like on my computer with my soundcard?? Would I have to upgrade that also if I went with FM7??

 

Isn't the plugDX the same as DX200 as far as editability, filter types and waveform rom??

 

THANKS

[dementia13]

You don't say what your soundcard is, but your computer is better than the requirements. The sound won't depend on your soundcard, other than the quality of your digital-analog converters. I spent some time investigating an FM purchase, and most of the opinions were that the FM7 is the best option; given that it can load all DX7 patches and is a lot easier to edit with the graphical display. Plus, it has extra features over the original DX. As long as you're not taking it on stage, that's your baby.

[tdm71]

THANKS I appreciate the feedback!! I have no idea what my soundcard is or what the D/A converts would be. Anyone have any idea or know where I can find this out ??

 

THANKS AGAIN!!!

[Ski 1642606170]

Originally posted by tdm71:

Isn't the plugDX the same as DX200 as far as editability, filter types and waveform rom??

Absolutely not. Again, as I said in my first reply, the PLG150DX card is like the original DX7. The DX200 has everything the PLG150DX card has, PLUS modeled analog filters (taken from the AN1x, as I recall), some "easy FM editing" features, a set of sampled drum/percussion sounds, and a sequencer. It also has real knobs, plus some trigger pads.

 

You also seem to have a few misunderstandings... FM synthesizers don't have "waveform rom", so to speak. Most only use sine waves, while some of the more advanced FM engines add a few other basic waveshapes - but sine waves are all you need in the 6 op FM engine to make great sounds! Also, the basic Yamaha FM engine doesn't have filters! With an FM synth, you instead accomplish changes in tone over time by varying your modulator operators amplitude. Filters were added to some more recent FM synths, like the FS1r and DX200. The FM7 also has filters. Once again though, the PLG150DX, like the original DX7, does not.

 

In order of sheer programming power/synth engine features, I'd list the four units as follows (best on top):

 

1) FS1r

2) DX200

3) FM7

4) PLG150DX

 

The FS1r is a stunning machine. Way too much cool stuff to review here. The DX200 has a small edge over the FM7 in programming power/features, and I think the DX200 sounds a little better, too. Even though the PLG150DX has the least features/power, it's cost effective, convenient (inside your Motif), and can use all the Motif's effects.

 

In any case, you really need to get out and try these machines for yourself if at all possible. Then do some soul searching to decide what will work best for YOU.

 

BTW, I agree with Rabid that FM7 has some nice patches. I think the DX200 has some good ones, too. Whether you get the DX200, PLG150AN, and/or FM7, there are literally thousands of free DX7 patches out there that you can load. And of course, you can always program your own!

 

Have fun!

[Dan South]

I would opt for the FM7. First of all, it's the best sounding plug in that I've ever heard. It has an output stage with unbelievable clarity. Second, I've heard complaints about the whole Yamaha expansion card system - weak processing power, difficult to integrate with the rest of the board/effects, etc.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Why is the FM7 modelled after DX7 and not SY77? Seems to me, SY77 is the much more desirable FM model. I've owned a DX7, a DX7II, and an SY77, and the SY77 makes some of the best sounds I ever heard from any synth, whereas the DX7 is just pretty good.

 

If I were going to buy an FM softsynth, I would want it to be able to load patches from, and sound like, an SY77.

[Tom Fiala]

I own the FM7. It sounds great. With the graphic interface, it is so much easier to edit and program your sounds, compared to the old days of the dx7 or even the simpler dx21. Also, you can use all the free dx7 sounds out there. It sounds great, and would be an excellent first soft-synth to own.

[burningbusch]

For me the choice is easy, the FM7. Except for a rare few, FM programming is neither fun nor intuitive--it's all about modify the volume of inter-related sine waves. With the FM7 you have the FM Matrix screen where the algorithm is laid out, you can see the inter-relationship and you can adjust the levels and pan positioning (I don't know if panning at the operator level is a part of newer FM hardware, but it is one reason why the FM7 sounds so nice). You also have spectrum and waveform screens so you can see the final results of your programming. All this helps tremendously in making FM programming more accessable, plus there's the easy page for just the basics. There is no equivalent in hardware for the 32 point, tempo syncable, operator level envelopes (another reason for the FM7 sound). And there's a lot more... as they say.

 

As far FXs, they are largely delayed based and sound fine. While hardware typically provides a lot of FXs in order to enhance the sound, soft synths assume that most people are using them in conjunction with DAWs which have numerous, superiour sounding FXs. When recording hardware, I almost always turn off the FX anyway for more flexibility in mixing and better sound.

 

While you can import the old DX sounds you'll most likely find them, for the most part disappointing, cliched, lifeless in comparison to the FM7 presets and add-on sounds. NI has brought FM into the 21st century, IMHO.

 

Busch.

[aeon]

GuestUser said:

Why is the FM7 modelled after DX7 and not SY77? Seems to me, SY77 is the much more desirable FM model. I've owned a DX7, a DX7II, and an SY77, and the SY77 makes some of the best sounds I ever heard from any synth, whereas the DX7 is just pretty good.

GuestUser:

 

As a former SY99 owner, I can tell you that most of what made the SY77 and SY99 such powerful FM machines is in NI FM7, and more besides. FWIW, I think the sound character and quality of NI FM7 goes beyond what the SY77/SY99 could deliver, and NI FM7 is certainly capable of complex, evolving, rhythmic tonalities that no SY77/SY99 could produce.

 

I think the modeled after DX7 aspect was more marketing than truth. NI FM7 is more like the best of Yamaha FM on steroids and crystal meth.

 

Busch said:

NI has brought FM into the 21st century, IMHO.

That hits the nail right on the head. I completely agree.

 

NI FM7 has become my favorite softsynth...all the FM goodies plus analog sounds that shame many VA softsynths.

[mikegrijak]

Originally posted by tdm71:

I asked this over at the Motif site and was hoping to get some feedback from you guys: Which would you rather have and why?? I know it comes down to my ears, but your thoughts are appreciated.

 

Also, Does the FM7 load the SAME patches that the DX plug-in board has/can load??

 

THANKS

I have to agree wholeheartedly with what is being said here regarding FM7! NI did a first class job with this software, as they do with their whole line! Once you really start digging into this thing, you can get just as lost as you want to get, it is that complex! I myself use east edit mode for most of what I do but the presets that are included with the thing only scratch the surface of what is possible.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by aeon:

GuestUser:

 

As a former SY99 owner, I can tell you that most of what made the SY77 and SY99 such powerful FM machines is in NI FM7, and more besides. FWIW, I think the sound character and quality of NI FM7 goes beyond what the SY77/SY99 could deliver, and NI FM7 is certainly capable of complex, evolving, rhythmic tonalities that no SY77/SY99 could produce.

 

I think the modeled after DX7 aspect was more marketing than truth. NI FM7 is more like the best of Yamaha FM on steroids and crystal meth.

I'm sure it sounds really good! The only thing that I don't understand is that it is marketed as being able to "load DX7 patches", which is cool. But why not make it able to load SY77 patches too, since the SY77 patches sound so much better? And SY77 could load DX7 patches, so if they gave it the ability to load SY77 patches, then it would be easy to make it able to load DX7 patches too. Instead, they've limited it to only loading DX7 patches.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by GuestUser:

Originally posted by aeon:

GuestUser:

 

As a former SY99 owner, I can tell you that most of what made the SY77 and SY99 such powerful FM machines is in NI FM7, and more besides. FWIW, I think the sound character and quality of NI FM7 goes beyond what the SY77/SY99 could deliver, and NI FM7 is certainly capable of complex, evolving, rhythmic tonalities that no SY77/SY99 could produce.

 

I think the “modeled after DX7” aspect was more marketing than truth. NI FM7 is more like “the best of Yamaha FM on steroids and crystal meth.”

I'm sure it sounds really good! The only thing that I don't understand is that it is marketed as being able to "load DX7 patches", which is cool. But why not make it able to load SY77 patches too, since the SY77 patches sound so much better? And SY77 could load DX7 patches, so if they gave it the ability to load SY77 patches, then it would be easy to make it able to load DX7 patches too. Instead, they've limited it to only loading DX7 patches.

An enormous library of DX7 patches exist. Probably not so with the S77/S99.

 

Do S77 patches really sound better? If so, is it because of extended algorithms or just because the D/A's on the S77 were superior to the DX7's output stage?

 

The FM7 can do anything that any of these synths could do and a whole lot more. And it's not that difficult to program. I dispute the fact that FM is counter-intuitive. You can learn how FM programming works by editing patches, just like learning how to program a subtractive analog synth.

[Phil B]

Originally posted by Dan South:

I dispute the fact that FM is counter-intuitive. You can learn how FM programming works by editing patches, just like learning how to program a subtractive analog synth.

This may sound completely ridiculous, but I actually learned synth programming with a DX7 (I'm 31, so...) - I didn't do any subtractive synthesis until later and THAT was counter-intuitive to me (starting with a saw wave!?!? OK, then what the hell do you actually program??)

 

Anyway, I use FM7 and it is my favorite soft synth as well. I could never get that deep with the DX7 - I hate little LCDs.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Dan South:

Do S77 patches really sound better? If so, is it because of extended algorithms or just because the D/A's on the S77 were superior to the DX7's output stage?

Yes, it really does sound better, I think it's mostly the extended algorithm, although the improved d/a doesn't hurt.

 

I have a DX7IIFD, which also has improved D/A over the original DX7, and I have a SY77, so I'm familiar with the sound of both of them.