FM7 versus DX7

Has anyone made any side by side comparisons between FM7 and the DX7 from years ago? I had a DX7 back during its heyday and I have listened to the mp3 samples of the FM7 on this site. My ears are a lot older and the samples are mp3; but the FM7 sounds quite a bit better than I remember the DX7 sounding (even with external effects).

Can anyone confirm or refute that the FM7 sounds better?

Thanks,
Don

 

There are some subtle differences between the way the FM7 and the DX7 react to pitch envelopes, lfo information etc...

It would have been nice if Native Instruments could have given the FM7 an "exact emulation" button so that it would faithfully reproduce the exact sounds that were programmed on the original Yamaha synths. That way, when you find a sound on the internet, it will produce an exact replica. Examples would be to emulate the DX7, DX7II, TX802, TX81Z, DX21, DX9 etc... using the same "FM indexes" and "LFO data" as those machines, all of which were slightly different. When I say "index" I mean that an operator value of 80 from a DX21 is more powerful output than a value of 80 on a DX7 creating more frequencies etc..

The new sounds that were specifically created for the FM7 are very nice and could not be created on the original DX range of synths. Mainly because the FM7 uses slightly enhanced versions of FM synthesis, has a noise generator, and an analogue filter plus its own on-board effects. All of which the DX's didn't have. I always thought that was a failing of Yamaha DX range, because if you look at the thousands of patches created on the DX7 to re-create those all important filtered analog sounds - what a waste of talent!! all those poor programmers busting their balls to create sounds that were, at best, fourth rate, compared to real analog synths.

Where the FM7 triumphs over the DX7II is that the FM7 has a greater bit resolution for crisper sounds and also has a very very quiet output. You must remember that dreadful hiss that was prevailent on the old Yamaha DX models - the analogue circuitry was very cheaply put together - unlike Yamahas old Analogue synths from the early eightees ( like the CS70M ) which had excellent output circuitry and was built like a tank!! ALso, the FM7 is easier to understand because it has do much screen space to deliver those all important envelope graphics and the algorithm matrixes are ever so easy to use.

 

Glen,
Thanks for the thoughtful, detailed reply. Some good news and possibly some bad news there. I guess my ears and memory aren't decieving me - the FM7 does sound better. On the other hand, I had hoped the mass of available old DX7 patches would be a shortcut to a gigantic library of sounds. From your reply I could infer that considerable effort would be required to make each old DX7 patch useful. I had hoped the old patches would be the perfect starting points for adding on the new FM7 features.

I wonder if a primer for "nudging the old sounds to usability and then applying the new features to those old sounds" will become available.

Thanks,
Don

 

tuning original dx7 sounds for FM7

I spend some time on DX7 sounds from all around the internet. Most of them are slight variations of the original DX7 presets or noisy 'experimental' sounds.

But, if you really like the older DX sounds, you can try to make them sound more 'original' with the 'DIGITAL' parameter:
FM7 Master Page / Quality / Digital (bit reduction)

 

thanks, but no thanks

Andy,
"Bit reduction" doesn't imterest me at all. I don't want to go back to the "12 bit" sound quality of the old DX7. I want the old patches to sound like they would have if they had the bit advantage of FM7. Glen suggested that FM7 is not a "perfect" emulation of the different settings on the old DX7, so the sound parameters need to be adjusted back toward comparible settings.

It that is the case, it would be nice to know (at least in rule-of-thumb amounts) which settings, which direction, and how much they need to be changed.
Don

 

In reply to Don...

The FM7 is still a great synth and well worth purchasing. It will play most DX7 sounds OK but there are a few that struggle to sound anything like the original.

Maybe, if we all ask nicely! Native Instruments would seriously consider adding a pull-down "emulation" menu so that we can select the instrument that the original sound was created on. That way, if a sound was created on DX7 MkI, we will be able to select the DX7 Mk1 emulation to faithfully recreate the original sound.

The emulation of the LFO's, Pitch generators, envelopes, FM index etc... would have to be precisely the same in order for this to work.

The same would go for sounds that were created on the DX21 compared to sounds on the DX9. The DX11/TX81Z had additional wave selections but they are already built into the FM7 so it should not be too much of a problem for NI to include precise emulations - should it???

Another thing to ask for, would be to make the FM7 a multi-timbral instrument with at least 8 synths in one box. This would accomodate any "performances" and "multiple sounds" that have been created on multi-timbral synths like the TX802 and the DX11/TX81Z. It remains to be seen if our poor computers would be able to cope with such a beast of an instrument hogging all that lovely CPU!!!

 

Great ideas, Glen. I invited NI support by email to look at this thread and comment.
Don

 

NI statement

Hi,

I am the designer of the FM7.

The FM7 audio engine is a completely new design, implementing a highly enhanced version of FM synthesis, optimised for modern CPUs. One of the main design goals was for it to sound the same as any DX/TX synth, when given the appropriate parameter settings.
It was no easy task to modify the DX architecture, expanding it, making it easier to understand and more flexible and powerful, while also keeping the sound compatibility.
When importing Sysex sound data from the different DX synths, FM7 does not simply copy the numbers, because this would not work. Instead, it detects which synth the sound was created on, analyses the sound's configuration and recomputes all the parameters to the equivalent FM7 settings. This is necessary to account for all the idiosyncracies in the different DX sound engines. So, for example, a given Output Level setting on the DX7 will translate to different values on the FM7, depending on the selected DX7 Algorithm. From TX81Z the values will be different again.
These sound conversion algorithms are the result of several months' work analysing the inner workings of the different families of 6-Operator and 4-Operator Yamaha synths.
So, in other words, the "exact emulation button" is already there and it's hard-wired to "on"!

We think we have succeeded with the sound import compatibility. However, in such a complex algorithm, there is the potential for bugs to occur. If you find a patch which sounds markedly different in FM7, this is probably due to a bug, and we would like to know about it.

Because the computational resolution and internal sample rates are
different between FM7 and DX, the synthesized signal cannot be 100% identical. The biggest difference between the same sound played on a DX and the FM7 is the lack of noise. The 32-bit floating point processing in FM7 gives a much cleaner signal than the low resolution fixed point processing in the old Yamaha chip.

Another thing is that most of the old sounds don't impress very much by today's standards. If you just download DX sounds from the internet an import them in FM7 you may be disappointed. But with just a few tweaks on the FM7 Easy Page you can do wonders.

Enjoy.

Michael

 

Michael,
What a great response. Thank you for clarifying the issues that concerned me about the FM7. I'm sure you may get some arguement about the "exact" accuracy of the hard-wired "exact emulation button" but the important thing for me is that the old presets import over in a useful condition. Your post convinces me that they do.

This whole thread has been an interesting and informative interaction; and, with your clarifications, people like me who are on the edge of that FM7 buying decision can move ahead with the confidence that you have created a great product. I will be impaitently looking forward to future versions of FM7.
Thanks,
Don

 

Hi Michael,

don't understand me wrong, the FM7 is a great synth and was one reason for me to update my Computer. So you realy done a good job with this software and even if it wouldn't import the old patches as excellent as it does, for me it'd still be a great synth since I rather program new sounds and use all the new possibilities than importing old 80s patches.

Nevertheless I have some TX81z patches that, even so the import is now (with the updated version) accurate, do sound to my ears much "better" and sometimes a lot punchier on my TX. One reason for this is the aliasing that, especially when working with fixed frequency operators, is making the sound much punchier, since it seems to work like a modulation, what is somehow similar to the difference between analog and virtual analog. So what you call noise can be an important part of the sound.
Another thing is the LFO, it seems that FM7 isn't correctly emulating the S/H waveform, since on TX81z & Co it behaves different compared to the DX7 and when used the right way it helps to create noise for drum and percussion sounds on those synth, what isn't working on the FM7...
So other than the advertisment found on the N.I. page claims the reproduction isn't in every case exact... But most ppl. probably won't spot the difference, especially when it comes to the typical DX sounds... ))

So I hope you don't mind that I don't completely agree with you and that I also don't care how exact the emulation is since FM7 has enough potential for new and interesting sounds. So for me it's a synth of its own and not a DX copy...

Best regards!
Summa

 

New User Patches?

I just noticed that there are no FM7 patches in the user library. It sounds like we have some knowledgeable (maybe gifted) FM programmers here.

Care to share some of your new patches for FM7 with the group?

Thanks,
Don

 

You can download a Bank with 32 of my FM7 sounds from www.kvr-vst.com. I'm not sure if I should upload them to the user library as well...

 

summa fm7 bank

I dl'd the Summa bank, but can't get FM7 to recognize it. It won't show up as a bank, and if I try to import as a sysex, it shows up, but then gives me a message that there is no sysex data contained in the document. Any thoughts?

 

Re: summa fm7 bank

It's not a DX sysex file so you can't import it. I saved it in the FM7 native .f7b 32 Sounds - Bank format and you should be able to load it by pressing the load button of the FM7 library page.
So far I got two mails form users where the sounds worked fine. I got one feedback where the user failed to load it as a Cubase .fxb file, what seems to be different to the N.I. FM7 formats.

Are you a mac or pc user?

Good luck!
Summa

 

re:summa bank

I am using a mac. The summa bank doesn't show up in the list when you use the load button. It is in the folder, but shows up as a document, rather than a FM7 related bank. Maybe you're on a PC and that is causing the problem?

 

Yep, I'm a PC - user so I had to ask a friend who's a "Mac - geek". He told me that the only thing that might be lost on a data file when moving it from PC to Mac is the info about the software that is related to the file. He also told me that there's a tool called resEdit (and other software too) that can restore this.

Well, I hope this helps...

 

summabank

Got it working after using resedit to change the application link. Thanks for the help.

 

mac notes

some notes on mac format:

1)the pc has the 3-letter-extension.. the mac has the file type and: the resource fork..
there are lots of tools (like resEdit).. where you can set the info if it has been lost by sending it over tghe net!!.. it consists of appname and creator.. thats where the mac determins, what applicatioon belongs to this document..

recource fork: only important, when mailing applications!!..why? the res-fork is NOT sent .. so you can only save it using stuffit or zip .. the res-fork contains dialog boxes , menus etc.. (as on the pc in a seperate file).. but on the mac it is attached to the application (yes, thats why it is a "fork")..

hope that helps..

for most apps it is n.off to change the file type.. there are OS X and OS 9.XX miniapps.. some work with context menu, some are standalone apps, some are fast to use..

www.versiontracker.com has them all

this should eliminate all problems.. mac can read all PC stuff..