PX-7 Operators Must Need Additive Waveforms( Title Edited )

This forum is for discussing Rack Extensions. Devs are all welcome to show off their goods.
User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

Well, I think we can agree that more options are better in most cases...
If we had complex waveforms we might even be able to import/imitate sounds from the later (lesser) DXes...

D.


User avatar
ScuzzyEye
Moderator
Posts: 1402
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

28 Jan 2015

FM synthesis is already difficult enough to get a grasp of how adjusting one parameter is going to change the final waveform. Having 8 operators, in a multitude of routing algorithms, and complex waves all interacting would likely make it nearly impossible to understand what's going on. It would just be a matter of trial and error when designing a sound. You couldn't actually think, "oh, operator 4 needs to feed back into itself as a stair-step, that'll totally get exactly what I'm looking for."

On, the other hand, with limited operators (4), with only a handful of algorithms (8), being able to use different waves is a benefit, and still within the realm of understanding.

But yeah, if they added other waveforms to the all eight operators in the PX7, it would allow for more options. Using the simpler algorithms, with half the operators turned down all the way, so they don't contribute, would still allow some grasp of what's going to happen before a change is made.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

28 Jan 2015

I would naturally assume that with more complex waveforms comes the need for subtractive filtering, making it a "hybrid" synth rather than FM. Without adequate filtering options, those complex waves would be much less useful to me. 

Not speaking from experience here, just theorizing out loud.
:)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

selig wrote:I would naturally assume that with more complex waveforms comes the need for subtractive filtering, making it a "hybrid" synth rather than FM. Without adequate filtering options, those complex waves would be much less useful to me. 

Not speaking from experience here, just theorizing out loud.
:)
Don't know, but the lesser DXes had complex waveforms, less operators and no filter...

D.

User avatar
joeyluck
Moderator
Posts: 11029
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

In related news:  Dexed:

Digital Suburban (makers of Dexed) plan to update Dexed with the ability to import sysex of Yamaha 4 operators (DX21/DX27/DX100).  It's on the 'To Do List.' Something that hasn't really been made easy to do in the past as DX7 users had to manually recreate the patches. Would be cool if PX7 could have this, but if not, I suppose you could import say DX100 patches into Dexed, export sysex from Dexed, and then import into the PX7 patch converter.

https://github.com/asb2m10/dexed

The developer mentions additional waveforms and has this to say:

"The goal of this project is to be a tool/companion for the original DX7. Sound engine with 'float' value parameters, different waveform à la TX81z would be great but anything that goes beyond the DX7 should and will be a fork of this project. This is to keep the compatibility with the original machine."


User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

28 Jan 2015

selig wrote:I would naturally assume that with more complex waveforms comes the need for subtractive filtering, making it a "hybrid" synth rather than FM. Without adequate filtering options, those complex waves would be much less useful to me. 

Not speaking from experience here, just theorizing out loud.
:)
eusti wrote:
Don't know, but the lesser DXes had complex waveforms, less operators and no filter...

D.
Good point - I've only worked on the DX series. Never explored those waveforms in FM8 either, as FM synthesis isn't something I'm that good at IMO. ;)
Selig Audio, LLC

User avatar
eusti
Moderator
Posts: 2793
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

28 Jan 2015

selig wrote:I would naturally assume that with more complex waveforms comes the need for subtractive filtering, making it a "hybrid" synth rather than FM. Without adequate filtering options, those complex waves would be much less useful to me. 

Not speaking from experience here, just theorizing out loud.
:)
eusti wrote:
Don't know, but the lesser DXes had complex waveforms, less operators and no filter...

D.
selig wrote:
... as FM synthesis isn't something I'm that good at IMO. ;)
Same here... Never got around doing a lot of serious real sound programming when I had my TX81z!!!

D.

hydlide

28 Jan 2015

selig wrote:I would naturally assume that with more complex waveforms comes the need for subtractive filtering, making it a "hybrid" synth rather than FM.
Complex waveforms (depending on their complexity) used in the realm of FM synths often end up being noize. Filtering will make things even more messy unless you self oscillate it (buts the similar as putting a sine on a filter).

This is one of the reasons why I often avoid using a Multi Osc (thor) and throw that agains FM for a second oscillator (depending on the amount of detuning which is applied).

There are however exceptions. But that all depends on what the modulator is. Keeping that one a straight sine, it "could" work. However, complex waveform * FM * complex waveform, often results into ATARI 2600 sounds.

I have done some experimenting with the Wavetable OSC (RE) to FM it. It sounds promising as long if you keep the wave forms like COS/Sine based. But as soon you start to create spikes (linear), they often start to sound rather glitching when reaching higher octaves (think octave 5).


However, addressing the OP, i would embrace an FM synth with more then just sine waves. However, I would beg the question if this would be an instrument for everyone to pick up and play.
An 2 OP FM synth (like the subtractor) is already hard to handle when using different wave forms for some.

User avatar
ScuzzyEye
Moderator
Posts: 1402
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Contact:

28 Jan 2015

hydlide wrote:I have done some experimenting with the Wavetable OSC (RE) to FM it. It sounds promising as long if you keep the wave forms like COS/Sine based.
The sines in the Yamaha's OPL chips were generated by tables, so that's not surprising. :)

User avatar
Despondo
Competition Winner
Posts: 1030
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Charlotte, NC
Contact:

29 Jan 2015

Just wanted to add in my two cents. I, for one, love that the props released the PX7 and kept it strictly true to simulation of the beloved DX7 of the 80's. On that note, I own a Yamaha V50 workstation from the late 80's on which I composed several songs that I'd love to recreate and enhance directly in Reason. The V50 is based on the 4OP Yamaha series with alternate waveforms. Therefore, I can relate somewhat with the original poster and others who have responded in kind. I would love it if the Props, or perhaps another developer would release an RE with functionality of these later FM synths that could faithfully recreate the multi-wave 4OP patches. I'd buy that in a heartbeat, as I did with the PX7.

RequiemMachine
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

18 Apr 2015

As someone who uses both PX7 and FM8 (in Logic)...I don't really think they can necessarily be compared to each other directly. I see them as two different things, FM8 is an FM synth with a bunch of other components built into it to make it a stand-alone product that includes the kitchen sink. It's all hardwired together and fairly "easy" to play around with and use. PX7, however, is more like an FM component to build the "synth" I want by routing in the other components need/want. It's an engine I can build the custom car I need for that moment around. It's not as easy as FM8 to get a sound I want...but it is more flexible and adaptable because I'm not locked into the components that the dev decided to give me. I get more exploration and potential for happy little accidents. Two different paths towards the same goal. One just takes more time and creativity.

I tend to see the Rrack units and RE's more as building blocks than plugins. I see instrument REs as sound generators and effects/utilities as modifiers to built my synths and effects units.

That being said...the OP may be interested in the FM4 RE that is supposed to be coming out sometime in the future....it's a 4 Op FM synth with multiple waveforms. I have it for iPad and it does sound pretty good.
Reason+ / Ableton Live / VCV Rack 2 pro
Producer/Artist of Sasquatch Cloaking Technology
Musican ~ Illustrator ~ Professional Napper

User avatar
SebAudio
Posts: 362
Joined: 08 Mar 2015
Contact:

19 Apr 2015

RequiemMachine wrote:As someone who uses both PX7 and FM8 (in Logic)...I don't really think they can necessarily be compared to each other directly. I see them as two different things, FM8 is an FM synth with a bunch of other components built into it to make it a stand-alone product that includes the kitchen sink. It's all hardwired together and fairly "easy" to play around with and use. PX7, however, is more like an FM component to build the "synth" I want by routing in the other components need/want. It's an engine I can build the custom car I need for that moment around. It's not as easy as FM8 to get a sound I want...but it is more flexible and adaptable because I'm not locked into the components that the dev decided to give me. I get more exploration and potential for happy little accidents. Two different paths towards the same goal. One just takes more time and creativity.

I tend to see the Rrack units and RE's more as building blocks than plugins. I see instrument REs as sound generators and effects/utilities as modifiers to built my synths and effects units.

That being said...the OP may be interested in the FM4 RE that is supposed to be coming out sometime in the future....it's a 4 Op FM synth with multiple waveforms. I have it for iPad and it does sound pretty good.
PX7 is too limited in the CV and audio I/O departments to be used as a satisfactory building block. And it's not real time (you have to retrigger a key if you want to hear changes when you modify settings of LFO or Env). Imagine an RE consisting of one "operator row" of the PX7 but with CV on every parameter and audio I/O : that would be a building block !

PX7 is for nostalgic people. Others are better to go with Thor or the new FM4 for a more simple and "FM oriented" approach.

RequiemMachine
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2015
Location: Columbus, OH
Contact:

19 Apr 2015

SebAudio wrote:PX7 is too limited in the CV and audio I/O departments to be used as a satisfactory building block. And it's not real time (you have to retrigger a key if you want to hear changes when you modify settings of LFO or Env). Imagine an RE consisting of one "operator row" of the PX7 but with CV on every parameter and audio I/O : that would be a building block !

PX7 is for nostalgic people. Others are better to go with Thor or the new FM4 for a more simple and "FM oriented" approach.
This is purely opinion. I don't find PX7 limited at all. It does what it does and I have no problems getting the sounds I want out of it. If it doesn't work for you, then it doesn't work for you. It is more than satisfactory for me a lot of others.
Reason+ / Ableton Live / VCV Rack 2 pro
Producer/Artist of Sasquatch Cloaking Technology
Musican ~ Illustrator ~ Professional Napper

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests