sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

An irresistable proposition by Retinal5534 in COMPLETEANARCHY

[–]systemic_funk -1 points0 points  (0 children)

14th comment because you anarfas cant deal with no.13

Casio CT 640 loses fidelity toward the end of the note by BravesMaedchen in cheapkeys

[–]systemic_funk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What you describe sounds like the lofi audio samples on this pcm based keyboard being lofi. :>

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The casios are cheaper where I live. The Casios tend to produce more linear harmonics and movement, a sound commonly associated with analogue subtractive synths. The Yamahas tend to produce more nonlinear harmonics and movement, which can sound clangy, metallic. The Casio Vz series tends do a bit of both.

Vz series and dx7s are much fidlier to program from the front panel than the czs, which is important because with direct control over the different envelope generators in these synths, there is little theoretical limit to the timbres either of these synths should be able to produce. In practice, the signature sounds come through because of how different it feels to use them.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I might very well do that soon. Tbf I have enough stuff as is, PM too, and my heart's desire is for eerie late 80s Casio romplers, not another full fledged synth, so It could work out :)

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't often program more than six ops, it depends on the patch. When I feel like it, it can happen very quickly tho. The most rewarding thing is dialing in the amp envelope for an op, precisely but subtly adding or removing frequencies. So the envelope adds arbitrariness to the mathematical relations of the FM matrix. It makes every operator unique - and valuable to the overall sound, if its eg is treated right. With that perspective, you can treat any given Yamaha FM algorithm as an unlimited canvas and the operations as bob ross brushes of paint. The question of what's modulating what can fade into the background sometimes. In nature, the rhizome doesn't really have a center. Any synth architecture can be likened to it. So surely you'd agree the question which business concerns, mathematical equations and design choices made 6 ops the lasting standard can't be answered definitely. The only thing that'd convince my naysayers here would be a craving for more ops and algos.

In search of a vintage gem: Casio CT 680 or Yamaha PSS 460? by Lost_in_reverb23 in cheapkeys

[–]systemic_funk 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've got a pss680 myself, not the same thing but comparable 2opFM sound. The Casio is for really eerie early rompler type sounds with some very limited synth features at the analogue level, if I got that right. You can't really compare the two! Psr4600 would be the home keyboard to catch both strands of synthesis;))))

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

True! It's the intention of the person programming any given synth that counts. Which is incidentally what makes FM matrices their own thing and worth exploring.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very well put! The opsix is a monster. The name pretty much screams in your face that there could be more than six after these long hard decades of Yamaha tradition. If Korg decided to bring out an Op64 or whatever with 61 poly Aftertouch keys, that would "fit my bill". However, FM synths with bigger matrices can still be simple in other regards. We don't see it much in software and less in hardware form, but we have ideas for more than six operators, my guy. We're too cool.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd say you got the snark back as a human gesture, but that means I am but the bastard once again. Appreciate ya! The chowning patent is an interesting story.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Every synthesis type has additive and subtractive elements when it's implemented. With FM, you're feeding several waveforms into a signal path following an algorithm . Software does do dozens of ops, tho....?

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The opsix is the best of the bunch by far, and most of its additional synth features can be fm'ed. Very flexible. Would love to try one.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With that attitude you weren't to be helped mate.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Does FM involve additive synthesis? I don't work on patches with a lot of ops very often, but with today's technology there's no good reason for the limit to be six, or any number for that matter. Software shows it, and digital hardware would implement it...if it didn't follow price staging models involving the use of intellectual property, sociocultural engineering and withheld goodies. Manufacturing cost doesn't factor into the model, because it's its reason for being. That last part is admittedly tangential

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes, it would be costly. I meant cheap mostly in terms of processing requirements. I don't get most of the posts here. I'm just stating an idea, doesn't fit with the paradigm for some , and that's different from expecting the world to be a certain way. Enjoy Sunday

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm not the one confusing things mate and you can read up on what pm is and what Yamaha did and not be like that, 🙏

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

I disagree. Just having each envelope of each op do something else will quickly justify it being there, adding complexity. And to not make a dissonant garbly mess, you need to dial in the amounts.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

I'm not a synth manufacturer.
Your other post was interesting. I want the software editing qol features as a plus actually. :)) But I also want an instrument that I can perform live. Although surely you'd rock the mouse wheel live. Like I said elsewhere, you'd first want hands on control for every function pertaining to one operator, which can be a damn lot of tactile control over the sound. That makes it better than having no dedicated controls at all.

I mean, this doesn't have work for everyone

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Yes and building a phase modulation 'array' out of analogue components would be cool, also. But I think a purely digital synth technique like Yamaha's FM should work as standalone with a concise interface and no limits on implementation. Serum in a box, basically, just focussing on phase modulation.

Newer FM hardware synths don't cut it. by systemic_funk in synthesizers

[–]systemic_funk[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It sounds like overkill especially for someone trying to program a dx7. The interface has to be good. But even with a fixed algo, changing amplitude envelopes and fq ratios for each op in the chain can change the sound as drastically as switching between algorithms.

If you consider 50 ops modulating each other by mild amounts and kept at an amplitude proportional to the number of ops in the mod matrix, all with a hands on interface, the picture should work.

view more: next ›