It's functionally imossible to program from the device itself.
??? 4op FM is very simple, you can program a patch from the front panel in a couple of minutes. There really not so many parameters for this guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triplizard
It's another piece of crap in your studio that you have to MIDI up and interace into your DAW, and worry about it breaking down, etc.
The OP is working mostly with hardware, and already has fm8, and is just wondering if the tx81z has something that fm8 doesn't, which it does. For FM synths they are about as far apart as they get.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triplizard
I'm assuming there's something out there that will let you program it from your PC, but if you're going to do that anyway, why not use FM8, which has a really usable interface and is 100X easier to fit into your DAW workflow?
Again, spend 15 minutes reading the manual, and with some understanding of FM it is easy to program from the front. It is a lot more work to keep it hooked up to a computer. You can sit down, watch a movie, and program the tx81z idly, and fill a bank of patches with bass variations etc, without breaking a sweat.
If that's hard, then read the manual and flex you mind a bit, I suspect it's more of a 'can't do it' mental block rather than any real impossibility. It's a very simple FM synth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triplizard
Does it have exactly the sound of the TX81Z? Probably not, but it's WAY more flexible and you can get a whole truckload of sounds that are way better (IMHO) much more easily.
The point is, it does do something fm8 doesn't which is sound like tx81z. It's a charming synth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triplizard
It's not like trying to emulate a Prophet 5 or a CS-80 or something - you're just replacing one antiquated form of digital synthesis with a newer, better version.
Newer, more powerful, sure, but one could quite easily prefer the sound of the tx81z and how it integrates into a hardware setup. Talking about better isn't really appropriate.
I am a FM freak (with 6 op FM, but hate 4 op FM) and have the DX7II (and before that DX7 classic) as well as the TX816 (8 DX7 in a rack as a super FM synth). I have dig deep with comparison with the hardware and software during the years. In my ears it sounds about the same in a mix, but slight differnt when just play around without other instruments. But it is close.
As mentioned by others in the thread the FM8 is a little bit more flat, especially when it comes to dynamic. But again, still close enought.
The FM7 sounded a little bit more harsh and closer to he DX7 to me than the newer FM8.
The main reason of the differnce is not in the algoritms but the D/A that are more dirty on the hardware. Differnt soundcards gives differnt result.
My DX7 and TX816 hardware is now stored in a closet until I have more space - the software is close enoght to me for recordings, even if the hardware is more fun and dynamic to play. But at the end of he road, when everything is EQed, compressed, processed and mixed the differnce can only be heard if one know it's software, otherwise not.
Verve92 has mastered the art of proving he knows little to nothing other than second hand accounts of actual experience and then slipping away when this is realized.
See: 7 other threads.
I am an FM freak as well.
If you're bent on emulating, FM8.
If you don't mind creating anew, I prefer the somewhat maligned Operator. This will obviously only be available in certain contexts.
Here is a track that uses this sound, it's from Tangerine Dream's 'Optical Race' album. The track is titled 'Sun Gate' , they used Yamaha TX802 and possibly DX7II for these plucky/bright sounds.
I think that's an SY77. They used the 77's "Hone" preset all over the place. There are D50 presets on that track too...
Get a TG77. It's shitty-era TD in 3 rack spaces.
edit: err I think Optical Race actually predates the SY/TG77. I'm probably thinking of the presets being on Melrose or whatever.
I think that's an SY77. They used the 77's "Hone" preset all over the place. There are D50 presets on that track too...
Get a TG77. It's shitty-era TD in 3 rack spaces.
edit: err I think Optical Race actually predates the SY/TG77. I'm probably thinking of the presets being on Melrose or whatever.
If my memory serves me well, they were using the TX802 a lot during these times, 'Optical Race' was released in 1988.
It was Produced, Composed, Engineered, Performed, and Mixed by 'Paul Haslinger' & 'Edgar Froese' . Using Steinberg Cubase on an Atari computer.
I wonder if anyone was able to emulate the plucky sounds I referred to in my opening post, and heard in the Youtube track above ?
I will try to do a bit of FM programming and see how close I get. Non of the sounds that come with FM8 are close to the sound I mention. But, I guess it's just a matter of programming FM8, since it is quite a sophisticated FM instrument.
honestly i dont think the native instruments stuff gets that close—it depends how OCD you are about these things though. the tx is a super gritty aliasing monster with a lot of character. i dont know if it's the converters in it, but it has a certain 'dimension' to it; like it seems to sound like its a physical object (if that makes any sense), whereas the NI synths have a very clean sound and seem dimensionally 'flat'. i heard someone make an analogy once that one is like a computer screen with a pure red image and the other is like a canvas covered in red oil paint. that's a good way of explaining the dimensional differences between FM8 and a tx.
I have to agree with Atma. My first FM synth was a DX9 (couldn't afford a DX7 at the time but I needed those sounds live and midi). I still have that 4 op DX9 and I will never part with it. My second DX was a TX7,,dirt cheap, probably the best value on the planet, and then recently I picked up an 802 becasue I had used a DX72FD for a few months and really liked it. So.....when the FM stuff became available I naturally thought yeah....makes sense,, it's FM digital, should be easy to replicate in the box. It isn't the same. It sounds much thinner and I wish I could put my finger on it but just not like the hardware. The best I can do is this.....The hardware sounds rounded and meaty...FM7 sounds sharp, edgy and thin. But hey...some people prefer sharp , edgy and thin.
I don't want to open a can of worms, but let me put this comparison in its context:
I agree to what is said above about that there are some major differences, BUT it depends of what scale one messaures with. When I say that the differnce is small I reffear to a normal listening in a song in it's context. Of course, if using the detailed scale I, and many of us with trained ears, can hear a huge differnce of the same synth if it's summed in Logic or ProTools etc, what cable that was used for the recording of the synth - its a huge difference with the pan law energy, transients etc, no doubt at all.
So when comparing FM8 and the DX-line of synths I use another scale that is more relevant, and I mean that it is not exactly the same, there are a lot of difference, especially to the dynamic and the depth of the sound as mentioned by many, but would still state that it close enought as a substitute for a DX7 - and we still even talked about how much more the FM8 can do with the FM sound (and still in my heart I am a DX7 freak, among many other DX-things started the TX816 user group years ago as a super geak of these marvels).
Still have a DX7II, Tx 802 and TG77 in my studio. A few things :
Hw Yamaha dont sound the same with same patches. My TX7s had a terrible noise floor for example, and were a bit more meaty in the low mids ( probably has to do with D/A converters, but also all the internal circuitry ) but still I had to sell them, I could not stand the noise anymore. Tx 802 have this funny pseudo roundrobin/circular thing on the separate outputs. You can do amazing things if you load it with slightly different FM percs, then process/pan them in your mixdesk.
Import : Some other soft synths import DX7 sysex, but ime FM7/8 are the closest to the original. Still you need to make a few adjustments manually to get closer in most cases. Also gazillion patches found on the internet are almost only duplicates of the original Yamaha soundbanks. Save you time and only DL the Yamaha banks.
FM8 doesnt sound exactly like its glorious ancesters, but imo shares the same FM magic possibilities, and actually it has more than them. If you're both into FM AND in soft synths, your best move should be to demo it, and see if you click with it.
As soft synths FM beeing not expressive, or flat, here's a simple example of what you can do with new patches for the FM8 : I presonnaly enjoy the FM8
fwiw,
LtZ
__________________ www.lelotusbleu.fr Soundbanks for Soft Synths - Xils-Lab Team
Last edited by LotuZia; 26th August 2012 at 11:17 AM..
Reason: typo
And when the DX7 first came I hated it - it was thin and boring compared to the analog synths durin the first part of and mid eighties. Almost every keyboard player loved it. Today it's the opposite: I love the DX7 and most people hate it. I guess it's because everybody are sick of the same factory sounds heard silions of times, in time and out of season.
When start to program the DX7 it is a wondful synth, not least for "non-DX sounds" as pads etc. Yamaha's ad said "easier than ever to program". I can't agree to that. One benefit with FM8 is the programming part that is so much easier, fast and fun.
The DX7 can surely benefit from layering with itself. That's one of the main reasons why I sold my TX7 for a TX802. I couldn't hear any substantial sonic differences between them anyway.
The same sound layered 2 or 3 times with different pan positions and detuning. Divine! Or layer 2 or more different sounds with different attack and decay times. Instant complex and evolving! Not to mention the alternate assign, the microtonal scales or the random pitch mode...fantastic synth for very little money!
The DX7 can surely benefit from layering with itself. That's one of the main reasons why I sold my TX7 for a TX802. I couldn't hear any substantial sonic differences between them anyway.
The same sound layered 2 or 3 times with different pan positions and detuning. Divine! Or layer 2 or more different sounds with different attack and decay times. Instant complex and evolving! Not to mention the alternate assign, the microtonal scales or the random pitch mode...fantastic synth for very little money!
Agree
TX816 layer the DX7 8 times - complex and evolving
On the DX7IIFD I used to have there were a few choir patches that gave the D50 a run for its money. The trick? Triple unison.
__________________ For all the intelligence and knowledge that technology empowers us with, the lazy and stupid is amplified along with it (Staticstarter) Threads to check out:Chord Generators & Tips | Pop Sound Sources
Hexter sounds much closer to the DX7/TX than FM8, not just in a general way, but tonally and harmonically.
More organic and 3D - FM8 is "flat and fuzzy"
Even then if I do a direct comparison between it and the real thing, it's not as interesting sounding
Have tx802 and fm8 and I agree with the fact that the hardware it's more alive. I got it revently so I don't have the knowledge to program it well. Where could I find something useful? I mean not the manual, I prefer something like a little guide or some powerfull patches as examples. Tnx
Have tx802 and fm8 and I agree with the fact that the hardware it's more alive. I got it revently so I don't have the knowledge to program it well. Where could I find something useful? I mean not the manual, I prefer something like a little guide or some powerfull patches as examples. Tnx
Some useful docs that should help in a general way
??? 4op FM is very simple, you can program a patch from the front panel in a couple of minutes. There really not so many parameters for this guy.
The OP is working mostly with hardware, and already has fm8, and is just wondering if the tx81z has something that fm8 doesn't, which it does. For FM synths they are about as far apart as they get.
Again, spend 15 minutes reading the manual, and with some understanding of FM it is easy to program from the front. It is a lot more work to keep it hooked up to a computer. You can sit down, watch a movie, and program the tx81z idly, and fill a bank of patches with bass variations etc, without breaking a sweat.
If that's hard, then read the manual and flex you mind a bit, I suspect it's more of a 'can't do it' mental block rather than any real impossibility. It's a very simple FM synth.
The point is, it does do something fm8 doesn't which is sound like tx81z. It's a charming synth.
I don't disagree with anything you're saying, but here's my point: if you have any one of a number of analog modeling/subtractive soft-synths, and then try out a genuine analog, 1 knob-per-function hardware synth, you'll notice a day-and-night difference, both in the sound and in the ability to interact with the synth.
IMHO (and others certainly can disagree) going from something like FM8 to a TX81Z you're not going to notice enough of a difference to justify the hassle. Yes, there are some differences in the sound, as there are between FM8 and Operator, etc., but it's not a landmark difference, and I personally think FM8 sounds a lot better in many ways (candidly, I was never a huge fan of the TX81Z sound even though I owned and used one for years).
On the programming - yes, I read the manual and yes, I fully understand FM programming. But to me, trying to program through a few push buttons on the front of a 1U rack panel is about as much fun as hammering nails in my dick. If one is already in the digital realm, and not directly interfacing with the sound engine via dedicated knobs, why not make use of an incredibly detailed computer display?
That's just my opinion, though. If the OP already has FM8 and is really into the intricate nuances of differen FM synth options and wants to add some more hardware to his rig and isn't put off by a 1U interface, then the TX81Z might be a great choice.
Just to clarify, I would rather Not deal with Yamaha FM hardware. Did that a long time ago, and was not comfortable programming parameters via buttons, and a tiny display.
The issue is ... Can I emulate the sound I posted (plucky/bright string sound) in the Tangerine Dream track example using FM8 ?
So far it seems like its the type of sound might not be easily emulated via FM8, but then... I haven't put enough time programming FM8 to come to a final conclusion. Hence, my post here, to see if anyone can successfully emulate this sound via FM8, or if there is a certain TX802/DX7II patch that can be imported into FM8 that very closely resembles that sound.
+1 for layering hardware FM synths and +2 for the convenience and flexibility of software. It's ok to try both!
Never was tempted by FM8, but I love my Linplug Octopus and Papen Blue. Will never sell my FS1r either. All sound different but superb in their own ways.
If your using a hardware FM synth, a software editor is a given....
Much easier to visualise the signal flow etc
So in the end you basically treat it like a softsynth with a more authentic sound
In my experience FM8 cannot really do that bright metallic sheen of a hardware FM synth
The convertors and analog signal path all help get that sound.
Don't know why the FM8 coders did not try to model the convertors and signal path either... much like how Relab did with the 480L emulation
New Reply 
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
