Moderators: Jesse, parametric
I used my FS1R for this type of stuff. You could get huge evolving "clouds" of sound that took 5 minutes to fully blossom into the final sound. Way cool.dalekay wrote:I use FM not only for patches but to build up landscapes so to speak.. dale
In fairness, it's a bit more than that, and that's why I want it addressed; you just can't get an exact multiple that isn't a power of 2 with the current scheme.GuyDenruyter wrote:and we all hope that this pitch-ratio issue will be addessed (as an option) in the next OS
After all, it's just a way of displaying values.
GuyDenruyter wrote:Maybe it would be a good idea to create some program templates to correspond with the DX-7 algorithms.
If each of us FM-fans creates one, and we exchange these, it's a little shared effort.
You are absolutely right. The fact that the envelopes cannot be emulated is one thing, but more important is what you mentioned about polyphone - I overlooked this. I propose that, instead of just starting to create templates on the fly, we should maybe first discuss about an optimised 'architecture' which somehow compromises between functionality and polyphony, and also taking advantage of the filters we have at the end of the chain. If we then more or less agree, we can split the work to actually implement these templates?gwenhwyfaer wrote:Yay, someone else with a beloved V50!
I must admit, until I got the Fusion, the V50 was the synth I turned back to programming more often than the rest - making FM do what I told it to was a challenge, in a good wayand lovely punchy bass sounds just seem to fall out of it without really trying. Also, the V50 allows operator frequencies to be set to 0 - which when you use it in a carrier gives waveshaping... handy for adding a bit of extra crunch to a sound. (I mention that because as far as I can see, the Fusion doesn't...) And a couple of its ensemble presets put paid to the myth that FM can't sound warm and lush, too
It's occurred to me that it wouldn't take too much effort to rustle up the 32 DX7 (and 8 DX9) algorithms as starter presets, but even then things won't necessarily be that simple - the Fusion's EGs can emulate the DX21's perfectly, but can't come close to the 4-stage DX7 envelopes; and the DX range all had fairly preset modulation routes - each operator has its own envelope, velocity sensitivity, level scaling, rate scaling, and LFO amplitude modulation; that alone takes up 30 modulation routes for a 6-op patch and we only have 32 available! So it might be a better idea to simply approach Fusion programming in a different way, especially since the fewer operators you use, the more polyphony you get; the name of the game has to be optimisation - only adding an extra operator, an extra modulation route, whatever, if and when you have to... as opposed to the DX, where all of the complexity is there whether you use it or not. For voices with a lot of commonality, the Fusion could well be a lot easier to program (only a couple of envelopes to worry about); for the more complex voices, where every operator is off doing its own thing, responding to all manner of control inputs in its own way... some of them might not even be replicable on the Fusion.
And of course, the Fusion has a rather cool filter tacked on the end. The DX never had one of those