Jump to content

What is the earliest synth invented? What did the Beatles use for some of their


Recommended Posts

  • Members

songs? Were they vaccum tube synths ?


Why did everyone regard Yamaha's DX7 as so profound? Was it really that much different that it killed all the analog-synth companies? If they were so great, why can you find them for $200? confused.gif


Why were old synths so ridiculously expensive back in the late 70s? If I remember right, a stinkin Roland Juno60 was $1,300 mad.gif .... and in 1981, that was like $5000 of today's money cry.gif



Why


why


why?



Thank you for reading down this far smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Tweedbucket View Post
songs? Were they vaccum tube synths ?
They used a Moog modular, as far as I know. I believe Maxwell's Silver Hammer was their first use of a synth. (Too lazy to go confirm.)

Why did everyone regard Yamaha's DX7 as so profound? Was it really that much different that it killed all the analog-synth companies?
Yes, it was. It could make sounds that the garden-variety subtractive analogs couldn't touchwithout being extremely bulky and expensive. That, and I think the EP patch on that thing probably single-handedly sold it. That sound is all over 80's material.

If they were so great, why can you find them for $200? confused.gif
Because they made a LOT of them. icon_lol.gif


Why were old synths so ridiculously expensive back in the late 70s? If I remember right, a stinkin Roland Juno60 was $1,300 mad.gif .... and in 1981, that was like $5000 of today's money cry.gif
Because they were complex machines. To recreate one of those identically today would still be ridiculously expensive. Lots of components ($), lots of wiring (labor $), lots of controls ($$), and generally none of it was made from cheap stuff. These were INSTRUMENTS, not discardable appliances.


Why


why


why?
wat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Telharmonium was making sounds in the late 1800's

Teleharmonium1897.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telharmonium

Also there is William Duddell's 'Singing Arc' back in 1899

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing...Singing_Arc.22

A couple of decades later and we had the theremin.

Fast forward to the early 1960's and you get this....



This is why HAL9000 sings 'Daisy' as his mind is devolving during the shutdown process in 2001.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by ElectricPuppy View Post
They used a Moog modular, as far as I know. I believe Maxwell's Silver Hammer was their first use of a synth. (Too lazy to go confirm.)
Yeah, Abbey Road has a fair bit of Moog Modular on it. "I Want You (She's So Heavy)", "Here Comes the Sun", and "Because" (the later two pretty prominent examples) also have Moog. Not sure what was recorded first.

It depends on how you define "synthesizer", but the theremin and the Ondes Martenot were successful enough to appear in several classical works and/or movie soundtracks. A few people have mentioned some of the less successful but still notable synthesizers.

Of course, you could be creative with less. (See: the original 1960s Doctor Who theme, entirely realized with tape technique and primitive tone generators.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Cost was simply a factor of the number of components and the effort required to design and build the things. No high powered software back then to design vlsi chips, nor really the technology to make them. If modern technology was made using the same techniques as back then, then it also be inordinately expensive, as well as huge. Just look at the first mobile phones, huge and expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah true. I bought an old organ from the 60s that had almost 50 tubes in it and the workmanship was amazing inside. I bet it took a couple hundred hours to wire up the tone modules and snake it all down to the amp and speaker... not to mention all the keyboard mechanicals and the wood cabinet. I wonder how much that thing cost back then? I got it for $20 redface.gif


Here is a thread with pics I did about it smile.gif

http://www.thegearpage.net/board/sho...highlight=conn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the earliest synthesizer in *wide-spread* use was the Hammond Organ.
It featured
- additive FM synthesis (drawbars control sinewave ratios)
- a selectable low-frequency oscillator (fixed at 6Hz -- vibrato scanner)
- ability to change the attack/decay envelope of the 2nd/3rd harmonic (percussion, as of the -3 series)

Similarly, the Leslie speaker cabinet is probably the first effects unit in *widespread* use.

And, just for the record, the DX7 is awesome. I want one again. If there is a $200 DX7 in your market, get it, change the battery, reset it to factory, and get out your patch editor. There is like a decade of fun hidden in that box.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpaw View Post
Yes! For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, here's a cool site with a lot of pics and details on the Novachord:

Novachord Restoration Project

Smalln33.jpg

THAT was very interesting!! Holy crap, who would have ever thought a monster like that was ever invented, let alone 1000+ of them? eek.gif

Thanks for posting that! smile.gif I have a friend who is into old 50s and 60s Hammonds that may find this very interesting as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What was so significant about the DX7 is it almost singlehandedly caused a lot of keyboardists to switch from being programmers to being preset jockeys. The FM synthesis on the DX7 and its interface was very hard to program but it had some really good presets. Suddenly understanding and programming synthesis was an order of magnitude harder, and at the same time you didn't actually need to program to get good sounds out of it. A lot of people saw the easy path, took it, and never looked back.

So the significant thing about the DX7 was it changed the overall philosophy and approach to synthesizers as far as the general keyboard player was concerned. I consider that more significant historically than it using FM instead of subtractive synthesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Iamthesky View Post
What was so significant about the DX7 is it almost singlehandedly caused a lot of keyboardists to switch from being programmers to being preset jockeys. The FM synthesis on the DX7 and its interface was very hard to program but it had some really good presets. Suddenly understanding and programming synthesis was an order of magnitude harder, and at the same time you didn't actually need to program to get good sounds out of it. A lot of people saw the easy path, took it, and never looked back.

So the significant thing about the DX7 was it changed the overall philosophy and approach to synthesizers as far as the general keyboard player was concerned. I consider that more significant historically than it using FM instead of subtractive synthesis.

I blame the modern ROM based workstation -- particularly the "combi" (combination patch) -- for the heavy reliance on presets over programming. It's a big selling point to display numerous banks of slick combis in a workstation for potential buyers to audition in the music store. Often the combi will trigger a drum beat, and it will have a split bass and upper register each with its own assigned arps. I have never, ever used them (preset combis), nor do I know anyone else who does. But I can see where they might convince someone in a music store that they're making music.

Also, the instrument patches in workstations are often polished and tailored to the point that many users don't want for anything more. They see no need to change much if anything, and often lack the interest or expertise to do so. It's understandable to a point. I've pulled up really good piano and EP patches, for example, that sounded nice enough that I saw no need to change much about them -- although if I'm recording with it, I'll make various adjustments.

As for "synths" (both VA and analog) that's another issue. Hardware and software makers have realized that there are a finite number of archetypal or classic "synth bass" sounds, "lead synth" sounds, "pad" sounds, etc. that people tend to look for. A lot of people these days will scroll through a bank of preset bass sounds, pick the one that's closest to a genre type bass sound they're looking for, and use it as it is. Many who buy MicroKorgs apparently do this, and the instrument itself seems to be built around this kind of thinking. Arturia's "The Laboratory" software also anticipates this. Its preset patches (over 3500 of them) are built around the "sweet spots" of the classic synths -- the trademark sounds that were most popular. And I have to say, there's a lot there. A person could go very far with 3500 presets emulating the "best of" the Jupiter 8, Prophet 5, Minimoog, etc.

But all of it discourages people from making their own sounds from scratch.

I also think a majority of people who take up keys today have no interest in learning anything about the physics of sound -- even though the internet and proliferation of books on the subject makes it more accessible than ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To be honest, you can pick up people using presets in songs from the first time patch memory was added to synths. (It's possible to pick out Prophet 5 presets back in the day, for instance) The DX7 just made programming a pain in the butt, so it gave that much more motivation to use the presets vs roll out your own sounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Tweedbucket View Post
songs? Were they vaccum tube synths ?


Why did everyone regard Yamaha's DX7 as so profound? Was it really that much different that it killed all the analog-synth companies? If they were so great, why can you find them for $200? confused.gif


Why were old synths so ridiculously expensive back in the late 70s? If I remember right, a stinkin Roland Juno60 was $1,300 mad.gif .... and in 1981, that was like $5000 of today's money cry.gif



Why


why


why?



Thank you for reading down this far smile.gif
1.Why did everyone regard Yamaha's DX7 as so profound? Was it really that much different that it killed all the analog-synth companies? If they were so great, why can you find them for $200? confused.gif

every analogue synth before the DX7 arrived FAILED to sound like a convincing REAL instrument...so when the DX7 came out in 1983 (along with midi) and you could call up a piano, string, vibraphone, trumpet patch and it actually sounded pretty darn close to a real instrument sales of analogue gear just died right there and then for many music shops.

most keyboard players wanted pianos, organs....DX7 delivered...done deal.

why so cheap now?...progress>> and sample playback wins over FM hence the Krome rompler and motif e
tc.

2.Why were old synths so ridiculously expensive back in the late 70s? If I remember right, a stinkin Roland Juno60 was $1,300 mad.gif .... and in 1981, that was like $5000 of today's money cry.gif

they cost that because it cost that to make them and the market supported such prices...remember back then you only had a sinclair spectrum....that didn't have midi or vst software synths!

a bbc micro was
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Came here to post exactly this. (I have that poster above my keyboards biggrin.gif)
btw That movie still holds up very well, although the love story was really hokey. Really good job with the monster fx and it's full of suspense, and the score helps a lot with that. If you've never seen it I highly recommend.

Quote Originally Posted by cresshead View Post
forbidden planet - first synthesiser score for a feature film

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet

april 1956


220px-Forbiddenplanetposter.jpg

8 years before the moog synth was invented
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...