DX9 vs DX7

[xman911]

Yes, DX7 is a true classic. I'm looking into getting a DX200, which sounds just like dx7, but it's easier to program. I currently own an200 and I just love it for that an1x sound. DX7 may be hard to program, but there are tons of sounds that you can download online. I think DX7 = true FM, isn't it where it all started ?

 

One of the most popular digital synths ever was the DX7 from Yamaha, released in 1983. It featured a whole new type of synthesis called FM (Frequency Modulation). It certainly is not analog and it is difficult to program but can result in some excellent sounds! It is difficult because it is non-analog and thus, a whole new set of parameters are available for tweaking, many of which seemed counter-intuitive and unfamiliar. And programming had to be accomplished via membrane buttons, one data slider and a small LCD screen.

http://www.vintagesynth.com

[cheptronics]

 

Originally posted by gilwe Isn't FM7 supposed to be one of the most sophisticated FM synth available ? I just wonder.

 

actually I thought it was only the best DX7 emulation (including all its defaults due to the use of some electronic components), with some additional features maybe ?

[BOBA JFET]

 

Originally posted by xman911 Yes, DX7 is a true classic. I'm looking into getting a DX200, which sounds just like dx7, but it's easier to program. I currently own an200 and I just love it for that an1x sound. DX7 may be hard to program, but there are tons of sounds that you can download online. I think DX7 = true FM, isn't it where it all started ?

 

 

 

Actually, the term "FM" is sort of a misnomer. It could be more accurately described as PM, or Phase Modulation - it gets tricky since by modulating a signal's phase you affect it's frequency, but PM has some advantages over straight FM, one of the most obvious of which is that when a signal is FM's it's fundamental frequency starts to rise, which is usually not a musically useful feature. Google "John Chowning" and you can learn a little bit more about the intricities of all of this.

 

Also, the DX200 isn't exactly the same as a DX7, but I'm going to venture to guess that you probably wouldn't appreciate or care about the differences. The DX7 has been used by way more famous people than the DX200 has though, that should definitely weigh in to your purchasing choice.

[xman911]

But Dx200 sounds exactly the same as DX7, uses the same engine and it's actually easier to use. I really don't need that many keyboards, already have Z1 and pcr-30, maybe just NL in the future. I'm more satisfied with modules or grooveboxes (don't laugh), but they take less space and have more capabilities.

[BOBA JFET]

Well, I think all three of those claims are debatable. There are a number of reasons why the DX200 sounds different from a DX7, one of the most obvious being the output stage being very different. The DX7 has a 14-bit DAC but I've read it operates at something like 57KHz. The internal calculations on the DX200 are almost certainly handled very differently as well, and are probably derived from the DX7-II rather than the original DX7.

 

The engine is definitely different, the DX200 has filters for one.

 

The DX200 being easier to use, if you just like to tweak a handful of paameters this is probably true. But you have to interface with a PC and use software to access the full engine, that hardly qualifies as easier to me.

 

I did say though, the difference probably won't matter to you. Get the DX200, you'll probably be very happy with it for a few months. The DX7 will probably just piss you off.

[xman911]

I'm not big on programming with buttons, that's why I got my Z1, for all those knobs. My an200 has all those knobs and it's just great to tweak this and that, I just been messin with the presets for few months, still haven't used the editor yet. Once I get all my gear in order, I will take it more seriously. DX is great, but I'm going for dx200, cause it doesn't take that much space.

[gilwe]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET I'm not crazy about the DX9 either. The thing is that the operator scaling of the later 4ops yields more aggressive sounds which makes up for the simplicity of timbre. I like 'em, even though the EGs and LFOs have awful resolution, the noise floor is high, and they're not all that great for polyphonic sounds (except bizarre atmospherics) I think because the internal voice mixing is so nasty sounding, they're just so characterful. But the DX9 is kind of pointless - it doesn't have the bite that makes the other 4ops so great, yet it also lacks the finish that makes the DX7 so cool. It's not like DX7s cost a lot these days, I just don't see the point in bothering with a DX9.

 

Well, to tell the thruth I personally not "carzy" about FM synthesis at all, and actually if it didn't cost

50$ I wouln't buy one anyway... but I think I'll have to try a DX7 though.

[Sealed]

I like 4-OP FM synths. Their parameters are indeed limited in number, but essential and deep enough to create unique sounds.

And of course, they are incredibly cheap - 16-poly keys under $50, etc.

 

It would be fun, if we challenge to make a whole album with one DX9 only. Sometimes we like a synth because not only of its assets, but also of its limitation.

 

FM7 is a great FM synth, though I feel some ambivalence with NI's sound character. SY77/99 and FS1R are FM synths that have features FM7 can't emulate. I wish NI would make an update to emulate SYs.

[brzilian]

 

I have sat and programmed some excellent sounds with the DX9. It may not be a DX7 for sure, but in my opinion it has a better sound than any of the other 4 operator fm synths and i have used most of them at some point, my personal favourites being the DX100, DX11 and the TX81Z. But id rather use the DX9 every single time for 4 operator sounds. Bass, cold sharp DX strings, marimba, koto and lots of over blown twangy sustain fm fx sounds which only fm synths can do and if i could have 2 DX9's for the price of one TX81Z, no prizes for guessing which id choose

 

 

Are you for real?

 

4-Operator FM with only a sine wave??? No thanks.

 

Later 4-Operator models added more waveforms on top of the DX7/9's sine wave because Yamaha realized that you need 6 operators in order to get any kind of decent sound if you're limited to carriers only producing sine waves.

[mrcpro]

Yeah...I agree...if I had to choose between two DX9s and one later multiwave 4 op like the DX11 or TX81Z, actually I think I'd go with the DX11/TX81Z. If those were my two choices.

[suitandtieguy]

 

Originally posted by LesMizzell 1. Yamaha DX-7 II Centennial 76 Key Version with the gutz of 2 DX7 II's under the hood. There were only around 1000 of these made, so they're very rare.

 

 

if that thing had the interface of the DX5 i'd be trying to buy one right now. like, this very second.

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by brzilian Are you for real? 4-Operator FM with only a sine wave??? No thanks. Later 4-Operator models added more waveforms on top of the DX7/9's sine wave because Yamaha realized that you need 6 operators in order to get any kind of decent sound if you're limited to carriers only producing sine waves.

 

You may not like sine wave only FM synths but do you have any idea of how many sounds there are for sine wave only 4 operator synths? There is a lot more to FM synthesis than just a simple sine wave!

 

Did someone from the original Yamaha design team or someone else from Yamaha tell you about " Yamaha realized that you need 6 operators in order to get any kind of decent sound if you're limited to carriers only producing sine waves " ?

 

Seems like a wild claim to me. Have you used a DX9?

 

Lets stick to the facts here.

 

True or false?

The DX9 has more in common with the DX7 than any of the later 4 operator FM synths?

 

True or false?

Yamaha rarely release a synth that is totally useless?

 

True or false?

All FM synths offer something a little different and the DX9 like most FM synths offers a complex form of synthesis and is capable of thousands of sounds including bass, pianos, brass, lots of eastern percussive sounds and an unlimited amount of sound effects?

 

True or false?

When the DX9 came out it could literally " blow away " many synths from the compitition and its wide variation of sounds was almost unheard of before the DX9 and DX7?

 

True or false?

The DX9 has a better sound than the Yamaha FB01 module? ( im asking this for a good reason, i'll let you know why later )

 

True or false?

A DX9 playing marimba and koto sounds will sound much richer and fuller than the following 4 operator synths. DX27, DX21, DX100, FB01, TQ5, it will sound very much like the DX7?

 

I'll again ask you if you have used a DX9?

 

Ill show you a few interesting links later if you answer those questions

 

There will always be synths that all of us will dislike, but to suggest the DX9 is a total waste of time or all 4 operator sine only synths sound bland is totally missing the point!

 

I'll say this one last time, the DX9 is a Yamaha and a synth that broke new ground and had a quality design team and lots of money thrown at the whole FM project, there are hundreds if not thousands of sounds for the DX9, in the studio and if used with FX the posibilities are almost endless and the sonic ability of all FM synths is remarkable. It is a true synthesizer and although nowhere as powerful as the DX7 it is one VERY capable and very powerful piece of kit.

 

After saying that though, i wouldn't buy one

[BOBA JFET]

I do kind of see where CC is going with this one - for marimba, koto sounds, probably EPs, glassy sounds, etc. the DX9 is probably the 4op to reach for. I've only played with the DX9 in a pawn shop, but my impression of it was pretty much that it's a scaled-down DX7, just as advertized. The later 4-ops do sound different - when I had my SY99 (which to me sounds pretty much like a DX7-II plus the extra stuff) it sounded totally different from the DX100. I couldn't get anything near the grit that the DX100 has, but the DX100 doesn't have any of the glassy sheen that the 6-ops have.

 

From what I can tell, the DX7 is almost somewhere in between and to the left a little. It has a little more of that rawness and presence that I like the DX100 for, some of the Sheen that makes the 6-ops so great, and something I can't quite put my finger on - maybe it's those early DACs?

[BOBA JFET]

Also, I'll be the first to say that the extra waveforms on the later 4ops are a bit overhyped - they're all simple waveforms derived from a sinusoid anyway - they can add a little flavor, but they only marginally expand the available sound pallette.

 

To me the really exciting thing about a DX11 for example is the multitimbrality and the pitch envelope - can you say FM drum machine?

[mrcpro]

 

Originally posted by Carousel Candy Have you used a DX9? I'll again ask you if you have used a DX9?

 

 

 

Yes. Oh and once again yes. The year was 1983. I was totally unimpressed. I waited in line and bought a DX7.

[gilwe]

Well, I played the DX9 for a while today, and kind of realized what everybody was trying to say about it.

 

Yes, it looks to me like Yamaha tried to make a budjet FM synth,

and yes it looks very limited to me. Also damn noisy, I mean extremely noisy, much noisier than what I heard on the worst analog synths... strange, I wouldn't really expect this from Yamaha. Is the MK-I of DX7 that noisy as well ??

 

I do feel like I need a DX7 to try out

[kayvon]

I'm currently making do with the DX200. I'm very tempted to buy another PLG-DX and plug them into an old motif rack for an ultimate 32 voice FM electronic piano.

 

Probs with the DX200 are that it doesn't receive aftertouch info, you can't edit sounds any deeper than what's on the front panel (annoying when you want to make simple performance tweaks) and also there's only 128 user patches (how many as a PLG-in?) which are only represented as numbers, no names.

 

Only other thing is I can't get it to respond to volume/expression cc data cleanly without a very small amount of zippering. I don't know if this is the box's fault or my controller, although it seems to respond fine to filter cutoff.

 

With regards to the earlier lower bit-rate output of 6 op FM synths sounding warmer/more chracterful, well I'd have to agree but at the end of the day the main character is in the synthesis method and I (personally) want to hear it in full quality.

 

I think I'd wet my pants if I found out they'd released the TX816 with the third gen 16 bit DA converters. I'm properly on a quest for the ultimate FM electronic piano.

 

 

Anybody ever try a CE2-/CE25?

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by BOBA JFET for marimba, koto sounds, probably EPs, glassy sounds, etc. the DX9 is probably the 4op to reach for.

 

Tis true dat

 

Thats the word i should of used " glassy "

Sums the DX7 and DX9 sound up nicely.

 

There were just too many models though and it can get very confusing, especially for noobs. Four operator, six operator, avanced six operator ( SY77/99 ) eight operators. Then there are the different amount of algorithms some models have.

 

Those extra waves the later 4 operator synths had are useful but nothing that special, its the good'ol sine wave, amount of operators and algorithms that really count with FM. Yamaha really did cut too many corners with the later 4 operator synths though.

 

For me, FM synths are as important as analog and layering analog and FM opens up a universe of sound and posibilities, highly recommended to anyone who has not tried this. One of my all time favourite combo's is Roland JX10 and Yamaha DX7, even better if DX5. I often feel the JX10 and DX5 were made to be together, pure ear candy, classy and VERY powerful.

 

There may be thousand upon thousands of sounds available for FM synths but i still feel there is much unexplored sound possibilities. Its a synthesis thats so expressive, its all about touch sensitivity and modulation, delicate the one moment, powerful and hard the next. The 6 operator synths can do classy, glassy, sharp, bright, dull, thick, cold, warm, full and thin sounds, thats a wider spectrum of sound possibilities than any other synths i can think of. Have you ever listened to the ref whistle sound of the DX7, that is one complex sound, even if it is an almost pointless sound for a synth to make. Then there is the classy glass edged electric pianos or what about those bells? truly stunning stuff. I often think people who hate FM synths just refuse to really listen to them or are so in love with analog they miss the point exactly. This may be the best time ever to add FM into all our kits. Analog and FM, Yummy

 

In a world of romplers, samplers and VA's, its great knowing there are traditional synths available. Analog and FM synths are true synthesizers, even the humble DX9 can make wonderful noises.

 

A Yamaha synth for $50 and some still want to dish out the dirt!?

[BOBA JFET]

Another bargain right now for Yamaha FM is the TX7 module. Can't edit from the front panel, but it is a full DX7 MKI engine module, I've seen them on ebay for as little as $40.00.

 

A little OT, but it's wierd to think - with some judicious shopping one could build a studio comprised of an AN1x, TX7, TX16W (Typhoon, naturally), Pismo Laptop, and a little mackie mixer all for like $500. Add a little audio/MIDI interface and some kind of multitracking/MIDI sequencing software and that's an entire studio, one could write just about anything with that - and perform it live, too! That whole setup is compact enough to take just about anywhere. Man...thank gives me pause to think - to have such a simple little setup like that, it could be really fun.

[OctaveDr]

 

It would be fun, if we challenge to make a whole album with one DX9 only. Sometimes we like a synth because not only of its assets, but also of its limitation.

 

 

You guys are making me want to dig out my ol' DX-9. I have one somewhere!

I Dont know about a whole album but I bet I could still get some kind of interesting composition out of it. Can I use my MuRF and Echoplex?

[cheptronics]

btw, as I have almost no experience with 4- or 6-operator DX-x synths, can you tell me which FM it is: parallel modulators and one carrier, one modulator and parallel carriers, or FM stack ? or may you choose ?

[King Julian]

So where does the FB01 fit into all this? I haven't used mine for ages and was thinking to get rid of it - except that they go for so little on ebay around here that I may as well keep it.

 

So CC - you seem to imply its not as good as the DX-9 and the DX-9 is not really worth $50??? Is there anything it does well?

[BOBA JFET]

 

Originally posted by cheptronics btw, as I have almost no experience with 4- or 6-operator DX-x synths, can you tell me which FM it is: parallel modulators and one carrier, one modulator and parallel carriers, or FM stack ? or may you choose ?

 

 

You can choose - that's what the algorithm determines.

[cheptronics]

it's cool at least (I personnaly use mainly stacked FM)

 

thanks for the info

[Sealed]

 

Originally posted by OctaveDr You guys are making me want to dig out my ol' DX-9. I have one somewhere! I Dont know about a whole album but I bet I could still get some kind of interesting composition out of it. Can I use my MuRF and Echoplex?

 

Of course! I think we can make older/cheaper synths shine by adding good/contemporary effects.