On Analog Tape, DX7s, Digital Recording, and Minimoogs

[Anderton]

This is sorta OT compared to the monster analog and digital thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

 

I have a theory (don't I always, LOL?) that the DX7 was as big as it was because analog recording was the dominant form of recording when it was introduced, and the DX7s bright, present clarity offset the somewhat hazier, warm high end of analog.

 

When digital recording became big, FM synthesis fell into disfavor and analog started its comeback. Why? Because the hazier, warm high end of analog synths offset the clarity (and sometimes stridency) of digital recording's high end.

 

I realize this is not going to make the list of Most Brilliant Insights of All Time, but I think there might be a correlation here...and in that spirit, I think analog synths will remain big for a long time, it's not just a fad.

 

I also find it interesting that when Native Instruments did their FM soft synth, the first thing they did was add a filter

[elsongs]

I realize this is not going to make the list of Most Brilliant Insights of All Time, but I think there might be a correlation here...and in that spirit, I think analog synths will remain big for a long time, it's not just a fad. I also find it interesting that when Native Instruments did their FM soft synth, the first thing they did was add a filter

 

Agree that analog is not a fad. The subtractive synthesis format (whether analog or VA or some form of digital) is the de-facto standard method of sound synthesis, mainly due to its relative simplicity.

 

Though Yamaha put a filter in their 2nd- and 3rd-gen FM synths long before NI did, BTW Of course, by then FM had become passe, for the reason listed above.

[Kotch]

 

I have a theory (don't I always, LOL?) that the DX7 was as big as it was because analog recording was the dominant form of recording when it was introduced, and the DX7s bright, present clarity offset the somewhat hazier, warm high end of analog.

 

 

I think that's true of a lot of music gear from the eighties. The high end got hyped so, when it got recorded to tape, the sound retained a bit of extra sheen and presence. Then when digital recording came along people still used the same gear, only that hyped high-end wasn't being attenuated by tape anymore.

 

I've long suspected that's the main reason why people thought digital sounded harsh and brittle.

[Beck]

This is sorta OT compared to the monster analog and digital thread, but I thought it was worth mentioning. I have a theory (don't I always, LOL?) that the DX7 was as big as it was because analog recording was the dominant form of recording when it was introduced, and the DX7s bright, present clarity offset the somewhat hazier, warm high end of analog. When digital recording became big, FM synthesis fell into disfavor and analog started its comeback. Why? Because the hazier, warm high end of analog synths offset the clarity (and sometimes stridency) of digital recording's high end. I realize this is not going to make the list of Most Brilliant Insights of All Time, but I think there might be a correlation here...and in that spirit, I think analog synths will remain big for a long time, it's not just a fad. I also find it interesting that when Native Instruments did their FM soft synth, the first thing they did was add a filter

 

Not bad reasoning at all IMO. I get the point. I made a similar observation about digital drum machines on another forum back in 2003

[Kotch]

 

I still maintain that the digital revolution was solely responsible for the tube revival, which followed right on its heals.

 

 

That makes sense. Because with digital you stop worrying about getting brightness and presence, and become concerned with smoothing out the harsh transients and adding warmth. In my current setup at home, I've got six 12AX7 preamp tubes in various bits of equipment -- not because I particularly wanted them, but because it's getting increasingly difficult to buy decent mid-priced gear that doesn't have a tube in it.

[Lee Flier]

 

And while we

[Lee Flier]

I think that's true of a lot of music gear from the eighties. The high end got hyped so, when it got recorded to tape, the sound retained a bit of extra sheen and presence. Then when digital recording came along people still used the same gear, only that hyped high-end wasn't being attenuated by tape anymore. I've long suspected that's the main reason why people thought digital sounded harsh and brittle.

 

Nah. That was a contributor, but the main reason people thought digital sounded harsh and brittle was because it did. Early converters were not very good - the 16 bit ones weren't even 16 bits, and techniques like oversampling hadn't been invented. People really had no idea how to master stuff for CD either. It took a few years for that to all get sorted out.

 

I think it was pretty painfully obvious that there was certain gear that had been de rigeur with tape that you just couldn't use anymore. I felt that way about U87s - they sounded great with tape - with digital they'd slice your eardrums out.

[Zooey]

 

Sorry, don't agree. What caused FM's downfall was not digital recording, nor the resurgence of analog, but further advances in digital synthesis, such as Roland's LA synths (D-50, et al) and Korg's M- and T-series romplers: all of which are digital.

 

 

I agree with this. Besides, the dates just don't line up. The DX7 was discontinued in 1986. Other than Stop Making Sense (which I didn't exactly sit around bitching about while wearing out my copy), I can't remember owning any albums tracked to digital at that time.

[techristian]

I think that Craig is right on this, up to a point.....but tastes change over time. Some hardcore techno geeks like all of those extreme highs and lows. I like some hardcore techno myself, but it can get tiring to the ears.

 

Dan

[Lee Knight]

I think Craig's right on here.

 

One of my old bands (Four Eyes/MCA) had a session with Paul Fox back in 84 or so. He hadn't gone on to be the producer he is today (Bjork, Gene Love Jezebel, XTC). He was a top notch synth guy. So we take our 24 track master to his suite on Sunset. He sets up his 24 track machine to our tape, lights up his rack of Dx7 modules, whatever those were called, and tracks a bunch of FM twinkly goodness all over our fat, guitarish pop. The contrast was breathtaking. Poking through the analog.

 

Those same sounds today? On my Pro Tools rig? Ecccchhhick.

[Bookumdano2]

I don't know about the recording connection but Dx7s were like gold that first year because (1), NOTHING could do those sounds and (2) you COULD NOT get your hands on one.

 

In fact, the year before, in mid 1982, there was a teeny tiny keyboard made by Yamaha (don't remember the name) that was fm based and no tweaking. Had 25 keys or something. Really, just a toy. I could only find it at a local (now defunct) kmart type store chain here in S Cal at the time was called Gemco. This tiny thing was BRILLIANT sounding with the trademark, later-dx7 bell sounds etc.

 

The thing was something like $60 and was so cool, even IT was being referenced in some o the mags. It may have even been Keyboard mag where I got the heads up.

 

I didn't buy one, but I'd often go over to Gemco to listen to this thing. Jupiters. Oberheims, remaining Arps, Emulators ... nothing could do those sounds!!!! Well, maybe the synclaver. But Gemco didnt' have that, much less at $60. In fact, I don't think the synclavier or Fairlight were here yet either. The mirage hadn't even yet landed.

 

And of course, the news was out to musicicans that Japan had something called a dx7 selling over in Japan-only that was bigger and programmable. Which then did not hit here in the US for almost another YEAR AND A HALF!!! That was torture for many who knew the news.

 

I actually found a guy in Santa Monica who was black-marketing them in to the US at $3000 a pop. I bought two from him right away in earLY 1983 and was in heaven. In fact, both had unlabelled midi connectors ...those being the final brief moments just before I knew what midi was.

 

As I remember, it was a feeding frenzy to get your hands on those once they actually did hit stores here later. I don't think it was much to do with recording techniques so much as we were all just barely ....barely .... into the age of polyphonic synths and here comes this dx7 that makes noises that are polyphonic, and sound nothing like ANYTHING else.

 

That was so cool. As soon as Yamaha released the Tx7, I sold both my dx7s in 1984 when they were both in pretty high demand. At that time, I was starting to have way too many actual keyboards and rack-mount versions were looking better all the time.

 

That was quite the time. A nanosecond after the dx7 starts hitting, affordable sequencers appear that can actually read smpte. Whoah. I get all these cool sounds... polyphonic.. and I can sync the pile to a sequencer which I can ALSO sync to a couple of synchronized 24 tracks. I now have what feels like a billion tracks of brilliant sounding sounds that all stay in exact time with my tape tracks. Very very very heady times that the dx7 just happened to appear during imo.

 

Anyway, I think it was lack of availability, and those cool one-on-a-kind sounds that put the dx7 in such high demand for adding to music arsenals.

[Anderton]

 

I agree with this. Besides, the dates just don't line up. The DX7 was discontinued in 1986.

 

 

Yes, but the DX7 II, TX802, etc. carried that same sound forward right up until the Age of ADAT.

[144dB]

I'm not sure how I feel about this...

 

I think FM fell out of favor because Yamaha was the primary force behind it, and they didn't have a direct competitor to the first wave of ROMplers (D-50, M1, etc.). Those "realistic" ROMpler sounds from the D-50 and M1 quickly became popular, and Yamaha had to shift gears and put their eggs in a different basket. The SY/TG synths were FM as well, but it wasn't until the EX7/Motif products that Yamaha synths really became popular again. For a while it was Korg-Korg-Roland... Roland-Korg-Korg (with an Ensoniq or Kurzweil thrown in occasionally).

 

I think the other reason FM fell out of favor was ease of use and programmability. Subtractive synthesis is arguably easier for many to grasp, and while a lot of folks are big on presets, even simple changes can overwhelm a non-FM'er. I love my FM7, but it's a fairly new love affair, in that I wanted something new to tackle beyond just subtractive VA's. Now I'm having a blast...

 

And with that particular instrument, I can coax some really warm patches (as opposed to the harsh, cutting sound often associated with DX-7's).

 

Todd

[144dB]

One other quick thing I'll add...

 

I think some of the recent love affair with analog synths can be tied to styles of music. Electronic music is bigger now than it was in the 1990's (as far as I can tell), and a lot of the textures in trance, drum & bass, etc. can only be achieved with analog-style subtractive synthesis.

[JeffLearman]

I think you're right, but as elsongs says, it's FM synthesis that's too crisp, not digital per se. A minor revision and you're golden. :-)

 

I never liked the damned things; they always set my teeth on edge.

[MrKnobs]

I think you're right, but as elsongs says, it's FM synthesis that's too crisp, not digital per se. A minor revision and you're golden. :-) I never liked the damned things; they always set my teeth on edge.

 

And a SL shout out and welcome to Jeff! Good to have you back here, buddy!

 

Terry D.

[JeffLearman]

 

You won't see me much at that other place any more.

[MrKnobs]

You won't see me much at that other place any more.

 

That's not good news! Who's gonna be in charge of the animation scripting there now?

 

T.

[Hard Truth]

Interesting theory, but I don't think that recording technology was a major factor. I would say the reasons are:

 

The DX7 sound was old and tired, it was time for the fad to end.

 

They were very unintuitive to program. Most people used the presets.

 

Every note sounded the same-there was little variety or animation to their sound.

 

When analog synths went out of style they became cheap, which got them in to the hands of the "wrong people" (not "real" musicians)who misused them to make new and interesting sounds.

 

The arpegiators and juicy sound in analog synth created hypnotic sounds highly compatible with the rise the use of ecstasy and other hallucinogens.

 

Soft synths and hardware virtual analog synths ended the tuning issues of analog and made programming more intuitive.

[Paul McCartney]

never really liked any of the FM synths, also the FM8 not, maybe good for some frightening, and often crystal clear sounds in a film,

 

and to make something sound warm and cozy, one better uses filters on it, not matter what the instrument is,

 

but using any brand of filter on a FM synth sound doesn't work for wetting any panties.

[veracohr]

If I want warm & cozy, I'm certainly not going to reach for an FM synth.

[Paul McCartney]

 

If I want warm & cozy, I'm certainly not going to reach for an FM synth.

 

 

I don't envision any FM sounds in any productions we do, also no Yamaha DX1, and tested all patches of the NI FM8, all way too sterile, too heartless, too sythetic.

[John Bartus]

 

Interesting theory, but I don't think that recording technology was a major factor. I would say the reasons are: The DX7 sound was old and tired, it was time for the fad to end. They were very unintuitive to program. Most people used the presets. Every note sounded the same-there was little variety or animation to their sound. When analog synths went out of style they became cheap, which got them in to the hands of the "wrong people" (not "real" musicians)who misused them to make new and interesting sounds. The arpegiators and juicy sound in analog synth created hypnotic sounds highly compatible with the rise the use of ecstasy and other hallucinogens. Soft synths and hardware virtual analog synths ended the tuning issues of analog and made programming more intuitive.

 

 

THIS. The DX7 FM digital timbres were such a pervasive sound in so much of the music from the 1980s, and they went the way of the massive gated reverb effect on the very loud snare drum.

[UstadKhanAli]

Am I the only one who thinks a lot of modern synths are still too bright?

[Paul McCartney]

There is a cutoff knob on almost all synths.