From batzman@apanix.apana.org.auTue Jun 20 10:07:07 1995 Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:32:47 +0930 (CST) From: Batz Goodfortune To: Crazed and Diffused Cc: analogue Subject: Re: Analogue Emulation (was Re: AW: DX7 spec sheet) On Mon, 19 Jun 1995, Crazed and Diffused wrote: > I've been programming, or should I say fooling people with DX7's for 9 > or 10 years now, and I'd say the truth is somewhere between Batz's & Haible's > statements. Sounds like the statement of an FM programmer. I've been using FM for a little longer. I bought DXs when they were first released and have a veritable "Shit load" of FM gear now and still havn't run out of posibilities with them. I may have had two advantages over most FM users. I have a pretty well equiped laboritory so the first thing I did (well the second thing if you include making a fresh batch of coffee) was to put the things on the CRO and have a look at what it did as compared to an SH5. I was able to see the waveform and the relationship between parameters and audio. I also have a Yamaha CX5. Whilst this is a pretty cheezy computer as computers go, It does have the worlds best DX7 editor. In terms of the parameter relationships displayed on the screen. There are a lot of things that are not obvious when dealing with DXs but the Yamaha programmers of this editor obviously knew what they were all about. Because of this I am able to program some very convincing filter sweeps. The temptation when working with Yamaha's implimentation of FM is to push the envelope of posibility. This results in harsh sounds with way too many upper harmonics. But using a far more subtile aproach can yield some rich analogue tones. The only two effects I use to augment the DXs (If you can call them that) are some chorus and a slight top end cut on the EQ. However, these days I'm tending not to use any and still getting good results. One other trick in the subtilty department is to have most of the envelopes tracking the same. Most Subtractive combo synths have only one or two envelopes where as the DX has 6. The temptation is to have them all adding progressive harmonics. However if you use split algorythms such as 1 through 4 you can set your basic sound using the first 2 operators in the stack and the last one can add upper harmonics as required. You have to think backwards as compared to using subtractive synthesis because it is after all an additive synth. So instead of starting with a harmonically rich wave form and subtracting, you add the harmonic content in reverse order. It just takes some thinking about. Having said that, I agree with the following. > Using a DX for a straightforward analogue emulation seems to be a waste of > time thought - you're much better off going for sounds that you can't get > out of your analogue gear. There's a lot of weirdness lurking inside the > DX. In summery. I'm not saying that a DX should be considered as a replacement for an analogue synth. I am simply saying that the idea that a DX makes thin sounds as compared to *Say* an OBxa is a myth. In fact I was once accused of hiding an OBxa in my arsenal when in fact it was a DX. Final point. I'm not a great believer in using synthesis to emulate other insturments. Or even other synthesizers. As far as I am concerned any given synthesizer is an instrument in it's own right. However there are times when you just need a piano like sound etc. In the final MIX. Who gives a shit as long as it sounds good. After all FM was originally an analogue process after all. Be Chill. _ __ _ Batz J Goodfortune | "_ \ | | | |_)/ __ _| |_ ____ ALL ELECTRIC KITCHEN | _ \ / _` | __|___ | Heavy Silicone | |_) | (_| | |_ / / |_,__/ \__,_|\__|/ / Direct from Tumbolia / ,__ |_____| South Australia batzman@apanix.apana.org,au voice +618 356 4081 DISCLAIMER: I'z Callz 'em as I'z Seez 'em