DX9 vs DX7

[mrcpro]

I guess there's really nothing wrong with a DX9 for $50, but for a little bit more...I mean, I just did a quick check on E-Bay, and 1980s FM synths are unbelievably cheap. Several DX7's sold recently for under $200, and get this...someone just grabbed a pristine TX802 (basically a rack-mount DX7II) with manuals for $129!

 

For those of you who weren't playing in the 1980s and want to get into this, you'll have to do your homework. Yamaha must have put out dozens of FM synths...wonder if anyone's done a count?

 

Anyway, I'm sure the CC is right that the DX9 has it's merits. My own negative reaction to it goes back to the fall of 1983. Right next to it in the showroom, and for about the same price, was the Juno 60. And if you were willing to get on a waiting list, for a few hundred more, there was the DX7. That DX9 just didn't have the sounds we were looking for at the time (remember this was 1983) and sat neglected by all. I ordered a DX7 that fall, got it within a month, and actually got 10% off...unheard of for this red-hot product at the time. I had a few connections back then. Of course, it's all gone now!

[mrcpro]

Oh yeah... and if anyone wishfully thinks these bargain prices might possibly apply to the DX1 or DX5....nice thought!

[tim gueguen]

But if you bought a DX1 you'd have to take into account the cost of hiring minions to haul it around even if it was dirt cheap.

[clusterchord]

mm, forgot bout that one, i d like to have a DX5 solely based on looks. or becuase i once had wet dreams about it (some 20 yrs ago).

 

 

on serious side, however, for standard 6op DX sound, my weapon of choice is TX802. it has best combo of options in a small 2U space. multi timbral and individual outputs compared to DXII for example etc.. best buy considering going prices.

 

 

then , for advanced FM machine for different sound i could recommend enough the FS1R.

 

even tho it is capable of reading standard 6op DX patches - they do not sound the same. i mean, yeah they do to an extent, but its just not the same cutting, glassy texture. lacks edge. ok, on occasion the imported patch is completely of the mark read by FS engine, tho it is rare - huh, of all patches, Solid Bass doesnt sound right when loaded inot FS haha..

[Yoozer]

Originally posted by gilwe I really don't get you guys... Synths had no display and even no patches in the seventies...

"This house you know, it had a shitload of windows. Big ones that could sway to the left, or to the right, or tumble. But oddly enough, no doors at all!

 

Compare it with this other house of a later date that's only got a trap door, and you have to memorize a 10-button push sequence in order to get in, and even then you can't weigh more than 150 pounds or otherwise you'll probably get stuck.

 

Both allow you to get into the house, right? But to even get there and see a damn thing what you're doing, no, not really.

 

Bad comparison .

 

Do you really must have velocity to play a good sounding synth? Well

Interesting question. Velocity can be routed to anything and is just an extra parameter for expression. With the Mini, this meant that anything you wanted to do to change the sound would either be caused by you turning the knobs or the modwheel. With the DX-series, it means that something that'd usually be out of reach (you try changing the overall character of the sound quickly while doing the fingerdance again) suddenly gets there, easily accessible and easily triggered.

 

It's like user interface design on a computer. You've got 5 'magic' points on the screen - the 4 corners (just throw your mouse in the general direction of one) and the place your mouse arrow is at this very moment. Every itme you place at those 5 locations is within reach and the fastest to access.

 

With velocity you just won a corner in the screen where you'd usually have none. For the DX those magical points would be the keyboard (velocity), modwheel, pitch bend, and the data slider.

 

Drop the keyboard and see what you're left with. So yes, velocity is indeed necessary on keyboards that don't allow you those magical points otherwise. (The Mini simply has every single control within reach so the lack of 1 point doesn't hit as hard).

 

Also : http://hem.passagen.se/tkolb/art/synth/dx9_e.htm

But if you're happy with it, go for it .

[gilwe]

I'm more than curious to try to make a deep use of it so I may "understand" the negative approach that I find many have to it, dunno why, but I have the feeling that most users do not really know how to make sounds on these machines and use them more in a way of uploading presets from the net etc. rather than understaning the synthesis method and how to use and program it. I'm actually quite fond of that deal (for 50$ ?...) although I will probably get a DX7II as soon as I find one for a good price, but the DX9 let "practice" in FM synthesis and is a good device to learn the issue, so later you can really make a good bebfit from the DX7 and such, and maximize its use.

 

As far as I see claims about the DX7 and DX9 have "only" sine waves do not make much sense because you actually use multiple sine waves to create the other types of waveforms common on other analog synths... also, I get the feeling that 4 operators can do much, so the the main limitation is it having 8 algorithms which can be too less of what you'd like to have. It would be great if you could program (create) algorithms - any FM synth that have this feature ? (FM7?)

 

One thing I must say - the DX9 is extremely noisy, and doesn't feel like a pro instrument, but more for synth entry users.

[Yoozer]

Oh, 50 bucks for what can double as a controller is nice, no doubt about that. The TX81z is a bit more expensive but only takes up 1U rack and can't be used for anything else.

 

From one of your earlier quotes:

 

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

 

It depends on several things; the number of operators (higher on the G2/Nord Modular/FS1r), the envelopes to control them with (for the DX-series it's only volume, not pitch), and the LFO (for the DX-series it's only a single one on the master pitch). FM7 can simulate LFO's per operator thanks to the multi-breakpoint-loop envelopes, but it can't do pitch > envelope per operator.

 

While it's not a pure FM synth I still think the Nord has the lead; of course, with the sacrifice of polyphony that comes with an increased complexity in design.

 

I think it's because the DX9 wants to look like a DX7 but isn't, and except for the DX7 the design can use some improvements (like in the DX7-II). It's like all the drawbacks of 4-op and the original are gathered in a single machine.

 

As for 'only sinewaves' - well, the extra waveforms save you wasting 2 or 3 operators on a more complex waveform. This means that a sound can be more complex. If you can replace 3 operators and replace those with 1 just for a saw wave you have 3 left for a complex upper component or something else. It's both a time- and resource saver.

 

DX-synthesis can be approached from a component-based angle; which is that you use operators in groups of 2 or 3, each shaping a certain timbre that's part of the final sound. That's why the 6-ops can sound more 'refined'.

 

The 4-ops also have a different scaling in volume, which leads to the phenomenon that a 4-op patch on a 4-op doesn't sound exactly the same on a 6-op (not counting the differences in convertors, DACs etc).

 

FM7 and the Nords both have complete freedom in algorithms. I don't know about the FS1r.

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by gilwe One thing I must say - the DX9 is extremely noisy, and doesn't feel like a pro instrument, but more for synth entry users.

 

Actually, the noise can be quite welcome once in a mix and playing with todays cold almost noisless synths and technology, adds a wall of warmth, try it and see

 

You have to remember the DX9 and DX7 were released in the days when Noise Gates were owned and used by almost everyone, the DX7 mk1 can be just as noisey. The TX7 and TX802 can be even noisier that the DX9

[Yoozer]

Originally posted by Carousel Candy Actually, the noise can be quite welcome once in a mix and playing with todays cold almost noisless synths and technology, adds a wall of warmth, try it and see

Pff! Balderdash! I bet my Juno-60 chorus noise is much warmer than that cold digital DX9 noise!

 

[Guest Anonymous]

Originally posted by Yoozer Pff! Balderdash! I bet my Juno-60 chorus noise is much warmer than that cold digital DX9 noise!

 

No contest, you win hands down on that one

 

Still love the noisey swirly mushy Juno chorus.

[mrcpro]

Hey Tom

 

Curious about your thoughts on your TX802. How are the envelopes? (DX7II was accused of not snapping the way the original did). I thought these boxes were quiet...do you notice the noise reported by CC?

 

I mean, these were boutique boxes when they were current, and I can't believe how cheap they are today! I'm thinking about revisiting FM and picking one up..just out of principle!

[gilwe]

I just got a TX7 from a friend, which I was trying for a while.

 

I now can compare the DX9 and TX7 soundwise and will be able to tell the difference once I do so.

 

First impression after playing some patches on the TX7 - no doubt, the lack of the other 2 operators, the missing algorithms and lack of velocity on the DX9 is very much noticable when comparing the two, as what the TX7 can do is very impressive.

All that while the DX9 sound is just beautiful, as limited as it may be. I could get some beautiful warm sounds with it, and I can quite see why some say it's the best sounding 4 operator made. As for the noise I was mentioning, well, it seems it was due to wrong levels on my sound card setup rather than coming from the DX9 itself. I mean, with my AKG271 headphones I can still notice high noise, but I guess that exists on the other DXs as well. Not much higher than on other analog synths actually.

[LesMizzell]

 

Curious about your thoughts on your TX802

 

 

One other thing about the TX802 that's really nice is that it is one of the few modules that allows you total access to the tuning tables.

 

So, if you're into alternate tunings or microtonal experimentation, it's a great module to have.

[DINpluggedIN]

Originally posted by gilwe ... also, I get the feeling that 4 operators can do much, so the the main limitation is it having 8 algorithms which can be too less of what you'd like to have. It would be great if you could program (create) algorithms -

There might be a misunderstanding here. It's not just coincidental that 4-op models have 8 algorithms, and 6-op ones have 32; there's a direct relationship between the number of available algorithms and the number of operators. Fewer operators means fewer possible ways to arrange them as carrier and/or modulator (algorithms). Since you've got to have at least one operator as carrier, four operators limits the possible carrier/modulator arrangements to 8 (2 to the third power). Similarly, six operators is limited to 32 (2 to the fifth). Operators (read "oscillators") cost money, but algorithms (arranging the oscillators) are relatively inexpensive, so I'm pretty sure that if Yamaha could have found a way to beat the math, they would have.

[gilwe]

I've been using the TX7 for a while now, and I must say this is one of a hell killer instrument. Should have got one much before

The versatility of the FM synthesis is incredible - I was even quite surprise because I always had the impression that the DX7 was quite a thin/digital sounding instrument - but I find that this one can make killer FAT brasses, elec. pianos (ok that is not surprising), pads that are not bad at all (still not as impressive as my JX's), and virtually can make almost any sound you can think of.

 

Also, I'm surprised to realize that many sounds I always assumed where coming from analog synths, on 80s records, many chances they where made with a DX

 

Also, I must tell that although the DX9 seems to be very limited compared to the TX7, I think it is warmer and a bit fatter.