Dual TX-81Zs ?

[kpatz]

They're cheap enough, get one 4-op and one 6-op, and use them together. They should complement one another nicely, instead of fighting with one to recreate the sounds of the other.

 

To translate between the keyboard and module variants:

 

DX7 (mkI) = TX7 = TX?16 - 6 operator 12-bit

DX7 (mkII) = TX802 (DX has unison, TX has multi-timberality) - 6 operator 16-bit. DX200 is similar

DX11 = TX81Z (DX9, DX21, DX100 are similar) - 4 operator

SY77/99 = TG77

[aeon]

Thanks for the explanation and post, Claude.

 

It seems many 6-op lovers think their synths can do all a 4-op can do and more. They think incorrectly, for the 4-ops can indeed do things the 6-ops cannot. They are different machines beyond the number of operators.

 

wildpaws, disagree if you wish, but know your BS flag is tattered and torn.

 

 

cheers,

Ian

[Tony Scharf]

 

Tx81z is a one trick pony, why would one want to have two one trick ponies?

 

 

To breed them...

[wildpaws]

Thanks for the explanation and post, Claude. It seems many 6-op lovers think their synths can do all a 4-op can do and more. They think incorrectly, for the 4-ops can indeed do things the 6-ops cannot. They are different machines beyond the number of operators. wildpaws, disagree if you wish, but know your BS flag is tattered and torn. cheers, Ian

 

No only you and Claude think it's tattered and torn. I started out many years ago on 4op synthesis with a DX21 in the mid 80s, added an FB01, then a TX81z and then another TX81z, I had few years of 4op programming before I ever moved up to 6op with a DX7IIFD (and later a second DX7IIFD w/E!, a TX802, an SY77, and an SY99). I've done 4op patches to 6op and 6op to 4op. The differences in sound when converting a 4op sound to 6op are so minute as to be insignificant. If you like 4op, great, go for it and keep a 4op synth in your rig. I find 4op to be rather limiting and slowly sold off all of my 4op gear and I have no intention to ever use 4op again, to each his own.

Clyde

[augerinn]

 

To breed them...

 

 

How can I tell which one is male and which one is female ? Do I like, just leave them alone somewhere quiet ?

[ElectricPuppy]

Just leave some lit candles and a few discrete patch cables and let nature take its course.

[flat earth]

Just leave some lit candles and a few discrete patch cables and let nature take its course.

 

:lol:

[aeon]

If you like 4op, great, go for it and keep a 4op synth in your rig. I find 4op to be rather limiting and slowly sold off all of my 4op gear and I have no intention to ever use 4op again, to each his own.

 

Indeed, Clyde, it is wise to choose what works for one's own goals, and what works for each will differ between and among people.

 

 

cheers,

Ian

[Acid Hazard]

I have both the TX81Z and a DX100... maybe i'll have to do a comparison between the Lately Bass and Solid Bass patches.

[Mike Conway]

The only 4 OP synth I had was the CX5M Music computer, but I didn't program it. I do know that my DX7 and TX816 had tighter, more snappy envelopes than my SY77. I had them all at the

and ported/programmed my fave patches to the 77 and the SY99 (which has much better samples/effects).

 

Envelopes on the SY/TG series were 0-63. Other FM synths had 0-99, which made them snap, especially on the low end, where scaling wouldn't cut it. Still, the sample input (including my vast and compatible TX16W libraries), Envelope Segment looping and Filters make the SY99, my preference of the Yamaha line. My overall favorite FM is the OASYS' Mod-7 engine.

[mildbill]

 

The only 4 OP synth I had was the CX5M Music computer, but I didn't program it...

 

 

 

I got my feet wet with FM on the CX5M too. It was a pretty good little machine for its time.

[aeon]

 

My overall favorite FM is the OASYS' Mod-7 engine.

 

 

My Top 3 would be:

 

 

 

That said, I'd love to have a Yamaha DX7IID to play with.

 

I used to have a Yamaha SY99, but I traded it away.

 

 

cheers,

Ian

[wildpaws]

 

The only 4 OP synth I had was the CX5M Music computer, but I didn't program it. I do know that my DX7 and TX816 had tighter, more snappy envelopes than my SY77. I had them all at the same time and ported/programmed my fave patches to the 77 and the SY99 (which has much better samples/effects). Envelopes on the SY/TG series were 0-63. Other FM synths had 0-99, which made them snap, especially on the low end, where scaling wouldn't cut it. Still, the sample input (including my vast and compatible TX16W libraries), Envelope Segment looping and Filters make the SY99, my preference of the Yamaha line. My overall favorite FM is the OASYS' Mod-7 engine.

 

 

I would have to agree with you Mike as the SY99 is my favorite with the SY77 running a close second. I too had a lot of favorite patches on my DX7II and TX802 that I programmed on the SYs.

Clyde

[kpatz]

I got my feet wet with FM on the CX5M too. It was a pretty good little machine for its time.

I got my feet wet with FM on a... Sound Blaster Pro. 2-operator cheesy FM, but it started me well on my way to a life of synth addiction. It came with a midi sequencer program called Voyetra, some limited version, but fine for playing around. I even found utilities to create my own patches for it. I guess I was hooked, long before I ever laid hands on a real synth.

 

Now with DOSBox I can relive those old days too (near-perfect AdLib/SB emulation!). Too bad I don't have my original midi/patch/CMF files from back then. I do have some GM versions, I should re-record them with my "professional" gear.

[uvacom-rotatt]

No only you and Claude think it's tattered and torn. I started out many years ago on 4op synthesis with a DX21 in the mid 80s, added an FB01, then a TX81z and then another TX81z, I had few years of 4op programming before I ever moved up to 6op with a DX7IIFD (and later a second DX7IIFD w/E!, a TX802, an SY77, and an SY99). I've done 4op patches to 6op and 6op to 4op. The differences in sound when converting a 4op sound to 6op are so minute as to be insignificant. If you like 4op, great, go for it and keep a 4op synth in your rig. I find 4op to be rather limiting and slowly sold off all of my 4op gear and I have no intention to ever use 4op again, to each his own. Clyde

 

All I'm saying is that there are some subtle differences in 4-op FMs versus their 6-op counterparts. If you prefer 6-ops, great! If you think the difference is negligible for your purposes, fine. If you do not believe that there are differences for which there is no compensation by parameter scaling then you are mistaken, and there are a few guys here who can attest that a younger version of me would go to great lengths to prove that to you. As it stands, I'm content with simply stating it. It wouldn't matter to you anyway because you like 6-ops FM synths better.

[T. Alan Smith]

DX11 = TX81Z (DX9, DX21, DX100 are similar) - 4 operator

 

I had a brand spankin' new DX11 fresh out of the box back in the day, as well as a new DX100(yeah, this was awhile ago), and you cannot begin to compare the 100 with the 11. Even w/o implementing the various available waveforms on the 11, it sounded SO much better(clearer, etc) than the 100(27, etc).

Selling it was one of the dumbest things I've done. I was such a beautiful piece of kit too.

[uvacom-rotatt]

I love how the DX11 looks. I'm thinking of getting one as a master keyboard simply because of it's aesthetics.

[flat earth]

Ive owned DX7IID, DX21 & DX100.

 

..but nothing (imho) beats the forgotten DX9 which i borrowed, for noisey digital FM Bass sounds. Have no idea why, but the courseness for me was a major plus point that the others seemed to lack.

[TropicThink]

Juan Atkins, who hasn't exactly been foreign to FM synths, has always preferred the 4 ops. I remember him saying that, paradoxically, he could get fatter sounds out of the 4 ops than the 6 ops Yamahas.

[kwilson]

I love how the DX11 looks. I'm thinking of getting one as a master keyboard simply because of it's aesthetics.

 

Hear Hear!

 

Used to have a DX100, DX11 and TX81Z (still have the TX81Z, just waiting for it to become a classic and worth $1000 on ebay ). My god was the DX11 sexy!

 

DX11 and TX81Z have the same 4-op sound engine and you could double the polyphony by setting one to play the even notes (MIDI note numbers I mean) and the other the odd notes. Alternatively detune one and pan the DX11 hard left and the TX81Z hard right for stereo fx.

 

Hell of a lot easier to program with the DX11 than the TX81Z though.

 

DX11/TX81Z made some changes to the DX100 voice architecture. Most noticeable was the ability to use 7 new waveforms instead of just the sine wave that the DX100 was limited to.

[asynchro_nous]

I've owned the DX100, and currently own both the 4-op (and essentially dual TX81Z) V-50 and two TX-802's, and I must agree that there is something "fat" about the implementation of FM in the 4-op Yamahas that the 6-op TX lacks, although the 6 operator TX has the potential of much greater transient articulation and overall harmonic complexity in the sustain stage than the 4-op offerings.

 

The 4-ops somehow dominate beautifully in the bass range of things right out of the gate (hard-programmed parametric magic at the output stage??), although I'm sure the 6-op stuff could get there nicely with the right approach to programming the envelopes of individual operators.

[uvacom-rotatt]

One thing worth mentioning is that the DX11, TQ5, V50, and WT11 all have a pitch envelope, which makes them much more useful for synthesizing drums. The TX81z lacks this (although I suppose this could be partially emulated with creative pitch bend MIDI messages).

[flowthrough]

 

One thing worth mentioning is that the DX11, TQ5, V50, and WT11 all have a pitch envelope, which makes them much more useful for synthesizing drums. The TX81z lacks this (although I suppose this could be partially emulated with creative pitch bend MIDI messages).

 

 

EGADS! the PEG (Pitch Envelope Generator) is indeed absent in the TX81z!

 

And I thought my TQ5 was a TX81z with effects and sequencer.- seems like it is just a bit more now.

[savojr]

 

Is there any benifit to having two TX-81Zs ? Plaid_EMU sold me his via E-bay (I bought it on a whim) and now I have 2.

 

 

Yes. I had two TX81Z's once and i used them so that both had always same sound loaded and audio from another one went to the left and another to the right channel. They were also tuned off slightly to make sound even bigger.

I edited those from CME BITSTREAM 3X hardware SYSEX controller so that MIDI output went from PC to Bitstream, and from that to 1st. TX81Z's MIDI input. Then from MIDI thru of the 1st TX81Z to input of the second.

This way i could create new patches quickly and edit them on the fly with hardware knobs. Oh boy it was sweet!

 

Nice setup but eventually i had to sell all of them away due to financial problems.. . .

[savojr]

yes- keep one TX81z .. and get a TX802 to go with it. The 802 is inexpensive these days- and well worth the price. The TX81z has the 12bit grit... and extra waveforms.. The 802 will give you 6 operator 16 bit sound.. and therefore, the best of both FM box characters. I have both- and use them both.

 

I'd say forget the TX802 and keep both TX81Z's.

 

BTW. Where did you get impression that TX81Z has 12bit converters? I heard no any kind of grit in TX81Z, not at all. Just PURE solid bass, no matter how low it was. I've done earthshaking sub bass sounds with TX81Z without hearing any noise what so ever.

 

I remember when i was reading TX81Z manuals many years ago, that it said they had improved their D/A converters to TX81Z.

That and my experiences with DX11 convince me that TX81Z has 16bit DA converters.

 

Reason why i mention DX11 is that i owned that one too for a while. Now THAT had gritty and noisy sound. It was like day and night compared to TX81Z!

 

That's means TX81Z being totally noiseless and DX11 almost unusably noisy. They had very, i mean VERY different sound quality.

Now if TX81Z would have had 12bit converters, what there would have been left for DX11? 8bit? 6bit Huh?! Not likely.

 

I've seen couple web sites claiming that TX81Z has 12bit converters and i blaim them about this confusion. Maybe you read wrong pages and blindly believed what they said..?

 

I used my TX81Z as my only synth in early ninetees and i had to take all out of it that i could. I turned it inside out and mangled with every parameter. I made some "out of this world" kind of experimental sounds with it.

 

Later when i got DX7mkII i noticed that i couldn't create practically anything with it's sinewave based OP's. It felt lame and dull.

So DX7 family and their glorious 6 OP's didn't impress me at all. There was a reason why Yamaha tought that 4 OP's are enough. It IS enough because of those extra waveforms are added to the equation.

 

There's one thing i admit that other Yamaha's FM synths have that TX81Z doesn't: pitch envelope

That makes TQ5 and couple other models better choices than TX81Z soundwise, and is one and only thing in DX7 that i miss in TX81Z.