FM Synthesis (Artist 6)

Not too sure about that statement as one just sold for £50 on ebay !!

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261168121359?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649&autorefresh=true

I’m sorry. I forgot we were talking about watered-down toy DXs.

Well the title and content of this thread are 100% related to the DX7 so i am not really sure what else you could have thought i was refering to ??

Your link (£50 Ebay sale)is refering to DX21. A 4-operator FM synth. Completely different kind of animal compared to DX7.

Oh ok, i did not realise there was much difference between the DX21 and DX7. The DX21 was 4 x years newer but i know has less Operaters and Algorithms than DX7.

Maybe you’ll appreciate this vid?

Thats great. He is a bit of a posh boy !! ha ha.

Indeed, I thought it was very funny and also educating.

For free, you can learn with these:

Crystal (Green Oak)
Synth1 (Ichiro Toda)
ZetH (DSK)
mda DX-10

Thanks a lot, i will check these out. Much appreciated. :smiley:

You’re most welcome, mate. :slight_smile:

Forgive me for saying so, monsterjazzlicks, but learning about FM synthesis seems a bit of a strange thing to want to do, now - unless it’s for a specific purpose - though I expect you have your reasons.

I think most people who tried found it wasn’t at all intuitive.

With old-style (analog) subtractive synthesis, once you’d got the idea of what filter envelopes and amplitude envelopes did, and had become familiar with the sounds of the wave forms available, you could make a pretty good stab at any type of sound you had in mind in just a few minutes; and the process was quite instructive, because of the broad-brush descriptions of the sound that were implicit in the settings of the envelopes, etc.

FM synthesis was utterly different. You just had to learn, pretty much by trial and error, what kind of sound would result from particular actions. What it had in its favour was that (a) the greater complexity in the evolution of its sounds meant that some instruments could be imitated far more closely than was feasible with subtractive synthesis, and (b) some interesting noises and other sounds could be made.

Playing the (then) new DX7 felt liberating and like escaping from stuffy subtractive-synth prison into what at first seemed like the open air, but soon showed itself to be another prison.

If you become very good at creating FM synth sounds, you’ll be able to wander around a lot of that prison.

Many of us just fumbled around the edges of a couple of cells.

When the DX7 was young, TV theme music and that would once have used a harp and a flute often used DX7 presets Harp 1 and Flute 1, and it was very dull to keep hearing exactly the same instruments coming up. Also, I remember the DX7 preset “Shimmer” appearing all over the place, in incidental music where a small live thing wiggled a lot. I don’t think that was a result of laziness - just that it was so hard to create your own sounds.

But if you’re determined to try, there are some books that go into details. Some, however, appear to be a lot more expensive than you want to pay for a usesd DX7.

I had (still have, actually) “FM Theory & Applications” by John Chowning & David Bristow. TBH, I didn’t stick with it enough to get very far with creating my own sounds.

Those authors were an interesting pairing, because David Bristow had been involved with commercial keyboards (Yamaha in particular) and John Chowning invented FM synthesis. He composed music using FM synthesis, using computers, some years before there was technology available to make the FM synth a possibility. I can’t say I particularly like it.

Here’s an example:

John Chowning - Stria (1977)

It wasn’t hard to improvise something superficially like that on a DX7; IMHO, that rather undermined the piece. And I don’t like listening to it now, because it brings back memories of often accidentally making sounds rather like that when trying to program something quite different.

I bought Native Instruments FM7. With it, I was able to recreate very accurately some Atari Cubase sequences that had played DX7 sounds, because you could load old DX7 sounds into FM7. But some of my own sounds that used long slow envelopes did’t work because slow envelopes ran at a different speed than in the DX7.

Hi folks (and to member Chase for his informative reply above),

I have seriously been working on ‘FM Synthesis’ solid over the past year with respect to the Yamaha DX7 and DX21 Synthesizers (which I was fortunate enough to purchase at sensible prices in eBay last spring). I must have read over 1,000 x pages of material on DX programing. Though there is still so much much I have yet to learn about these amazing instruments. And so much I absolutely LOVE about them!

So, for any one who may be interested, here is a link to my You-Tube channel in which the first 70 (or so) x demonstrations uploaded are with either the DX21 or DX7 :-

“Night Passage” thru “Bad Chiming”.

Cubase Artist 7.5 was used to make all of the recordings. Most tracks are ‘dry’ while others do use one or two effects here and there, as well as being ‘Normalized’.

Thanks very much indeed.

Best,

Paul David Seaman


Hi Chase,

I also have the Chowning/Bristow book you mention. I won it on eBay last year for 30GBP and it is in wonderful condition. Though it is last on my reading list because it appears, by far, the most detailed and intricate. To be honest, I am not even sure I will be able to digest it because it looks like it is on another level.

Thanks for the ‘Stria’ link. It actually totally blew my mind and if I had a choice of how I wanted to be able to score, then this (and below) is exactly what I would love to have the ability to produce. Unfortunately, I studied a totally different style of music at college and totally missed out on this genre.

Sabelithe :-

Best,

Paul

Nice, and thanks Paul.

Jarno,

Really not sure what your point is here to be honest? Correct me if I am wrong but I perceive this as being musical snobbery? Or perhaps some unsolicitored humor?

In my experience of comparing the two instruments side by side, I beg to differ here. The SYNTHESIS is purely identical albeit the DX21 model has somewhat less FUNCTIONS and has a non-touch-sensitive keyboard. If you can PROGRAM a DX7 (or DX9/27/100…), then you can PROGRAM a DX21. In other words the LANGUAGE is the same (so therefore certainly nota completely different animal”).

Paul

Hi Elektrobolt,

Appreciate your kind words dude.

Ta,

Paul

Hi,

Below is a conversation between myself and a You Tube user in which I am asking a question which has puzzled me for some time. Basically it is to do with how to use/set/understand etc the vast amount of FREQ values on the DX synths. Such as how Yamaha arrived at these configurations (which do appear somewhat daunting and random to a novice FM programmer) and what would be the best approach to being able to understand how to configure these settings in a manipulative way.

The conversation starts with a tail off from me asking him to make a TUTORIAL…(then it kinda rolls into a bit of dialogue about STORAGE).

Thanks in advance to anyone who cares to read/respond.

Best,

Paul

monsterjazzlicks: That would be great mate. Especially if you discussed ‘FREQUENCY TUNING’ of different OP’s etc.

+: > Sure, I’ve been meaning to do this anyway, but you’re making me want to do it sooner. I was being lazy anyway. I’ll discuss briefly or summarize some frequency tuning with the operators on creating a certain voice structure.

monsterjazzlicks: That would be very good because I am particularly interested in how you might decide up setting which OP ‘FREQ. TUNING’ to what. On some of the DX21 presets, they look totally random (eg. 1:0, 2:0, 13:23 and 27:54)! But collectively they produce a (say) FLUTE!!

+: > I’m guessing the modification of the hz higher pitch will synthesize the likeness between. It also depends on how they manipulated the envelope as well pitch envelope. What algorithm ? That’s not necessarily random, but I’ll need to know the algorithm.

monsterjazzlicks: Well I was not including ‘Volume’ or ‘Pitch’ EG’s here. Nor a specific ALG. Just a regular ‘On/Off’ note with its’ OP’s tuned to different FREQ’s. Though of course I can provide you with a very specific example if you so require?

+: > I was just, curious on the Alg, because it would show how they modified those frequency ranges through carrier and modulators. The envelopes was something I was just adding to mention how those frequencies are filtered through them to synthesize that flute characteristic. I’m actually trying to attempt a particular flute sound, but I will not give away it’s style just yet.

monsterjazzlicks: For instance, PRESET 2 (UPRIGHT PIANO) in ALG #4, has the OP “FREQ’s” set to -
1:0, 0:78, 1:0, and 3:0 respectively. My question being please, how/what/why did they come up with the 0:78 for OP2? I can hear it creates a soft ‘marimba-ish’ quality to the overall timbre, but pedantically there must be a specific reason they chose this exact value!?

+: > the. 78 will modify the 440hz wave in a lower pitch. One can raise the amplitude of this modification to have tone distortion or enough to sound close to a plucking string sound. This sound is utilized through three modifying tones. It probably isn’t as exact as an actual upright piano, but they can assume the harmonic structure can be modified in a tone through some harder or lesser strikes of mallet hitting a piano string, which could resound waves in the category of a little less than 440hz, around 440hz and around 1320hz.

monsterjazzlicks: That’s exactly the jigsaw piece I need! Yes, OP2 is modulating OP1 with a FREQ of ‘0:78’. But how are WE (the user) supposed to arrive a ‘0:78’? I follow my EAR a lot of the time (which is ok for lots of things), but I do not really understand from a Math/Physics point of view how Yamaha can so confidently arrive at these (irregular) parameter values?

monsterjazzlicks: QUOTE “The. 78 will modify the 440hz wave in a lower pitch”. So OP1 still retains it PITCH of 440kHz, but it’s TIMBRE changes because it is being modulated. But WHAT is the ‘0.78’ generating? And why not ‘0.53’ or (higher) ‘0.97’? I understand what all the parameters MEAN, but it is the MATHS and WHY that I am stuck on!

+: > It’s generating a modified waveform, and the carrier is being transformed a bit into that .78 wave form. The math can be a bit daunting, but you can always just hear what sounds good to you. Those fractions of semi or fine tuning can be administered however you wish, but it’s a fraction less than 440hz or forward, if you wish. It’s tuning it closer to an octave less than 440 cycles per second. And fine tuning, I don’t think that’s an available option on the dx21, the tx81z gets into fine tuning as well fixed hz, and micro tuning. This is capable with the dx7 too. it’s theory, not too factual or law, it’s the possibility of synthesizing accuracy.

monsterjazzlicks: Well WHERE did you learn this please? I have read all of the obvious DX SYNTH books but they do not really talk about OP relationships other than how to generate a Saw, Tri, and Sq wave etc!?

+: > also Harmonics of instruments have been measured for years, they have standard scale implementation and how many cycles per second for syringes and theory on other instrumentation harmonics. If you have an oscilloscope toy can probably see visual what’s going on in the wave form.

monsterjazzlicks: So Yamaha (and other companies) will have had a TABLE to follow/emulate the HARMONICS of the instruments of the orchestra? I knew they must have had something because these FREQ’s are not something you could guess up!

+: > of course not, the harmonic structures of instruments are a completely whole other study, which I dabble in at times and it really helps to see how things are. Have you tried the books of Chowning ? Look up Chowning and FM synthesis. You can also if interested study some harmonics and other. I’ve always wanted to make very cool sounds unlike the typical grinding mash up FM I was used to. I’ve been hearing plenty good new characters out there making their own sounds, especially yours too. I enjoy hearing others synthesis on FM. I hear a lot of other bad ones too or typical ones that are very bizarre.

I’m still working with FM and trying to make some synthesis wizardry happen. I’ve gained a bit of ground in the theory, bit there is always more to learn and attempt at. I feel using a good amount of a synthesizers functions can really make one some outside the rest. People often tend to use only the limited sounds and not explore an entire sound design system. I don’t blame them for not wanting to take FM though, not for everyone.

monsterjazzlicks: Can you recommend any books please which have all of the instruments HARMONICS listed (like you were talking about earlier)? Did you use any such books yourself?

+: > Ummmm look up Harmonic structures of instruments or acoustics. I have a few books on the matter, one which includes the famous Hemholtz on the sensation of tone, it’s not going to give you the answers you need right away but a good reference. I think Wikipedia can have a lot of charts, but discerning sound to try and emulate it on a synthesizer takes practice on hearing. How many timbres are sounding and how each timbre is functioning through playing harder or breathing Harder or softer. A six string guitar is usually set in EADGBE, each string is about a forth up ascending until the next E(third at B though, our it’s set in Sixth and fifth counting the sharps) a dx7 may be able to emulate a guitar through six carriers, but the vibrato of string tension might be hard to develop, so a tx816 can refine it if all boxes are available. A combination of six carrier algorithms mixed with a few modifying algorithms. ( this is just an example) the fun part about emulation is the idea that it isn’t too correct and how one can establish a unique sound outside of a custom acoustic instrument, that’s just my thoughts personally. So look up instruments online and listen carefully at what you think the wave forms of timbre are doing as well check the scale tempered quality of them. Dover publications also has some books on the matter.

monsterjazzlicks: But back to our original question again please:

“OP2 is modulating OP1 with a FREQ of 0:78” - does OP2 actually alter the TUNING of OP1? I mean (depending on the OUTPUT LEVEL of OP2) is it dragging it down from 440kHz to a lower pitch (freq.)? Or is it ‘filtering out’ the HARMONIC content above 440kHz (and the OUTPUT LEVEL of OP2 determines how STRONG the effect of this filtering is), and therefore altering the TIMBRE aspect?

+: > I think it adds another wave form almost, combines the two and modifies the first wave in a direction of whatever hz you choose to attempt adding another timbre that reflects a similar wave form.

monsterjazzlicks: wtf!? lol

I see it more as the MOD bending the CARRIER to (in this case) something close to ‘0:78’. The result is a COMPOSITE wave in that it is not 2 x discrete waveforms (ie we only hear ONE!).

+: > sounds about right, the sign wave is adjusted with another wave. This may result in that timbre quality which can reflect the timbre quality of actual instruments.

monsterjazzlicks: What do you use for STORAGE of your sounds please? Obviously you only have room for 32 patches on the DX21!

+: > I haven’t used any besides the patch area storage of the synths themselves. I recently bought a software, which I haven’t even used yet called DX7 manager. It’s a cool software that one can do all the work on the computer with wave forms and save midi patches to. It was mentioned to me by a fellow FM designer on YouTube by the name Roboticrealm. He’s a cool guy and does cool patch work with FM, you probably already know of him. Check him out and that software. I like chatting about these things, some FM designers out there don’t even give you the time of day and just brush you off like you’re not doing the same thing. It’s really immature. But I like getting to know you cool characters out there, with an open mind and take concepts from all over. I’m still a student in life and enjoy learning more. I’ll have to figure out that DX7 manager, but I’m so lazy and used to just storing them right there. I almost think in cubase that you have, you can store midi files ?

monsterjazzlicks: Awesome, that’s cool as I also have the DX MANAGER which I bought a couple of months back. I actually have YAMAHA MDF2 DATA FILER which I have been experimenting with. I am working thru it’s manual still. Same for DXM. I am getting the manual printed off for that.

I not heard of ROBOTICREALM (or at least I don’t think so). Does he give demonstrations on the DXM?

Yes, you can SAVE/LOAD Midi Files in Cubase etc.

+: > he’s still online, so you can check him out. He may have a tutorial or other about DX manager stuff.

FM synthesis: > http://youtu.be/Ep9I7-jADX0 > thought this was interesting a bit, but there may be a digital one too.

monsterjazzlicks: Thanks a lot, I will have a listen mate.

I have a DX7 on my shelf over there that I haven’t used in years, but it was great for all these years since I bought it. The DX21 is just a shadow of the DX7, just so you know. Turns out I have FM8 and never used it, so I can’t compare!
The thing about FM synthesis is that it’s not at all intuitive… tiny tweaks make a giant difference. If you’re striving for natural sounding real instruments, then sampling has superseded FM.