How is the FM synth?

[dcer10]

Hi everyone,

I am thinking about making the FM synth after my sequencer and sid are finsihed, which will be soon. I already own a Yamaha TX81Z {like 8 DX100's in a rack} and love it, is this synth much better? Unfortunantly the old FM synths all have the problem of a lot of noise, does this one share that downfall? Are the chips really that hard to solder? Im not sure if this is the project for me since I have the yamaha already, can someone sell me on it? I really want to build it but with the time and money investment im not sure this is the one to do unless someone can tell me its totally amazing as a synth. Does the filter have more resolution than the TX81Z {8 positions only, very steppy, need to re trigger the note}.

Thanks,

Jonh

[cheater]

It all depends on what you do with your TX. Do you just use presets, or do you make your own sounds?

If you use the former, you might find some people here share some interesting presets.

On the other hand, if you're into self-designed stuff, you will find that there are many interesting features in the MBFM. For example, the wavetable modulator/sequencer:

The wavetable sequencer provides:

3 assignable CC parameters

32 steps

absolute (0-127) or relative (-64..63) control

3 play modes (note, note step, freerunning)

frequency rate from 2 Hz..500 Hz

If you're into lo-fi sounds, you'll find the percussion voices just fine :)

You can also connect external analog filters. That makes the MBFM both an additive and subtractive synthesizer.

[TK.]

For a filter example, see this posting: http://www.midibox.org/forum/index.php?topic=6542.0

Can your TX81Z do the same? ;-)

Yes, the outputs are noisy!

Best Regards, Thorsten.

[dcer10]

Hiya TK,

The mp3 sounds awesome! The MBHP FM does sound like its more feature packed than the TX. I especially like the wavetable idea. I dont like the sound of more noise being added to my existing setup tho! Your file did not have too much noise compared to the signal generated. How much of the sound was from the other chips?

I have usually only used presets on this particular synth as the programming interface is terrible {TX} but have always wanted to lay out a control surface which {incorrectly} translates the programming interface of the TX into something more like the panel on a Juno 106. I know how different the two are, and that you would have to limit the TX to certain parameters to fit this kind of control for example only using a certain alg to get the waveform of the normal osc {limiting the proramming potential but adding simplicity to the layout} and then following a normal sort of signal path thru envs, filters etc like on a Juno. This would be cool if you could have one box as an FM sound module, then layout seperate panels for each configuration of how you might use it and hot swap them over when you like ie one panel suited for making FM drums, one for FX sounds, one for normal analog bass/synth sounds, and maybe one which has access to all the normal functions. You could have a different "feel" of synth from one tone generator for every day of the week :} I just dont like programming sounds on FM synths, too hard but I like the sonic potential!

I do have a program for my kenton control freak that sort of does that, and its good, but maybe building your FM synth with a series of custom interfaces would suit my FM needs more??

Its funny, I had not seen your pictures and I have the same mixer and was thinking of putting a SID into it :}

Thanks for the advice on the synth,

John

[cheater]

Hey,

The only thing that makes sound in the MBFM is the FM chip itself. Nothing else.

The demo TK posted also has analog filters on top of the MBFM and that's all.

You'll find the MBFM much easier to work with: it has hands-on controls (knobs etc)!

[c0nsumer]

I am thinking about making the FM synth after my sequencer and sid are finsihed, which will be soon. I already own a Yamaha TX81Z {like 8 DX100's in a rack} and love it, is this synth much better?

Just FYI, the TX-81Z is not like 8 DX100's in a rack. It's about the equivalent of a single DX11. The TX-816 might be what you are thinking of, but it's basically 8 DX7's, and is rather different from a TX-81Z.

-Steve

[dcer10]

Not that its that important, but there is a performance mode on the TX81Z which allows you to have 8 midi channels going with single operators {or more with less midi channels} running seperate, I thought that the DX100 was a single operator FM synth, if not I stand corrected. A freind of mine used to have a DX100 and described it to be like that.

[DrBunsen]

No, the DX100 is a 4-op FM, monotimbral (one voice at a time) and polyphonic (many notes at a time)

[Jaicen]

Yeah, the DX100 is exactly the same as the DX27, and not too dissimilar to the DX9. I have a  DX27 which I like a lot, especially for clean punchy bass because it has hardware envelopes which are very snappy. I've been after a DX100 for a while since I moved my DX27 to the studio, I need something that takes up less room at home.

[nebula]

A summary of the golden era of Yamaha FM:

DX7: 6 sine wave operators, rate/level EGs, monotimbral, 16 voice. (DX1 is like DX7 but bigger UI and keyboard is splittable).

DX9: 4 sine wave operators, rate/level EGs, monotimbral, 16 voice.

DX27/100: 4 sine wave operators, ADDSR EGs, monotimbral, 8 voice. (DX21 is similar but more storage and keyboard is splittable).

TX81Z: 4 8-wave operators, ADDSR EGs, 8-way multitimbral, 8 voice. no pitch envelope (WTF???)

DX11: keyboard version of TX81Z with pitch envelope and after-touch.

TX816: rack module with 8 individual "TF1" modules, each of which is like a DX7 with virtually no user interface.

DX21/27/100 also lacks the "fine" operator frequency control, so not as many carrier/modulator frequency ratios are possible.

The 6-op synths have 32 algorithms available, the 4-op synths have only 8 algorithms available.