Article 8739 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!uknet!zaphod.axion.bt.co.uk!planet.bt.co.uk!newshost!naw From: naw@planet.bt.co.uk (Ab Wilson) Subject: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 manual and DX9 information In-Reply-To: jstone%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu's message of 14 Jul 93 12:13:12 MDT Message-ID: Sender: news@planet.bt.co.uk Reply-To: naw@planet.bt.co.uk Organization: The Object Design Co Ltd References: <1993Jul14.121313.22771@hellgate.utah.edu> Distribution: usa Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 11:33:31 GMT Lines: 58 In article <1993Jul14.121313.22771@hellgate.utah.edu> jstone%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Stone) writes: >I'm looking for an owner's manual for a Lexicon LXP-5 effects processor. >Send me some email if you have one. Of course, a monetary reward is >available. Can't help you here. >Also, could someone explain the differences between the Yamaha DX7 and some >of the other DX models (specifically, the DX9)? Why are the other models >worth much less (except for the DX1) and what's so great about the DX1? The main difference bettween the moddels is the number of operators each voice had to use. The DX7 had 6 operators per voice, DX9s 11s 21s etc (anything with a number higher than 7) had 4 operators. 4 operator FM synths were ok but why bother when you can get a second hand DX7 for next to nothing these days anyway. There are exceptions to this rule but generally they don't start with the letters DX (eg TX etc). There was all so a rackmount version. This was a 3 unit high card frame into which you could slot up to 8(?) little modules, each of which was equivalent to a DX7. I think this whole setup was called something like a DX16R (?). The DX1 was Yamaha's flagship DX model. Essentially it was 2 DX7 is a nice wooden box with a wooden weighted keyboard (and a L7000 price tag). There was a cheeper version of the DX1 called the DX5. This had the same internals but had a normal metal/plastic case and a standard DX7 keyboard (still very nice IMHO). Anyway if your're after a powerful FM synth these days you've only really 3 choices: SY77--- 16 FM voices (more powerful than DX voices, each FM voice has 6 operaotrs (not limited to sinewaves), lots and lots of envelopes and two resonant filters), 16 AWM voices, 16 part multitimbral, onboard sequencer (not very good aparently). TG77--- rack version of SY77, no sequencer but 8 individual outputs (highly recommended, killer synth). SY99--- Bigger and better SY77 (better effects, more memory, can download samples). FYI the SY/TG77/99 was THE most powerful digital synthesiser when it was released (4 years ago?). They can still do weird things that no other synth can. (ie use a sample as a modulation source for an FM operator.) -- +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+ | Disclaimer: | Strange but true: | | ``It was not me, it | "Virginia Bottomley" is | | was the other three'' | an anagram for: | | --- Rick (The Young Ones: Nasty)| "I'm an evil Tory bigot".| +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+ | Ab Wilson | The Object Design Co Ltd | +-------------------------------------+--------------------------+ GCS/MU d--- p-- c+ l m- s+++/- !g w+++ t r- x++ Article 8764 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!korgrd!dan From: dan@korgrd.com (Dan Phillips) Subject: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: Organization: Korg Research and Development, Milpitas, CA Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1993 19:28:59 GMT Lines: 49 > The main difference bettween the moddels is the number of operators > each voice had to use. The DX7 had 6 operators per voice, DX9s 11s 21s > etc (anything with a number higher than 7) had 4 operators. 4 operator > FM synths were ok but why bother when you can get a second hand DX7 > for next to nothing these days anyway. > > There are exceptions to this rule but generally they don't start with > the letters DX (eg TX etc). There was all so a rackmount version. This > was a 3 unit high card frame into which you could slot up to 8(?) > little modules, each of which was equivalent to a DX7. I think this > whole setup was called something like a DX16R (?). The rack-mount card frame came with a variable number of tone modules; I've seen 2, 4, and 8-unit modules, called the TX216, TX416, and TX816, respectively. These modules had a very limited user interface, consisting of a few buttons and a two-character LED, and were not programmable from the front panel. The TX7 was a table-top module, also with synthesis capabilities equivalent to the DX7, which had an LCD display and allowed setup of performance parameters (such as unison or poly mode) but, again, no actual patch editing onboard. All of these modules can use SysEx dumps of DX7 programs. The envelopes of the DX7, DX9, TX7, and TX816 were also superior to those of the DX11, DX21, DX100, TX81Z etc., with considerably more stages (4 rates and levels). The TX81Z (and perhaps some of the later 4-op keyboards?) had 8 waveforms to choose from, as opposed to the DX7's sine-wave only architecture. In some cases, this allows for complex tones which would either take more operators or be difficult to create on a DX7/equivalent. The DX9 also had only 20 programs in memory, and no card slot (it had a cassette interface instead). It also did not have aftertouch. The DX7 II used 16-bit internals, as opposed to the 12-bit DX7 etc. The II allowed splits and layers, as well. The TX802 was a rackmount version of the DX7 II, which also allowed 8-voice multitimbral operation. I believe that Gray Matter's E! for the DX7 II (not the original) allowed 8-voice multitimbral operation on the keyboard as well. There were several versions of the DX7 II, including the DX7 IIfd (with floppy disk), the DX7 IIs (or perhaps the DX7s ??), which I believe allowed only a single timbre at a time (not splits and layers), and a special limited-edition version of the DX7 II with a 76-note, glow-in-the-dark keyboard, and simulated gold finish. Strange as it sounds, I am not making that last part up; I even saw one with my own eyes in the window of Manny's. Incredible. -- Dan Phillips KORG Research and Developement ____ "Stupid quote" "Cheerful Remark" Meta-Sigs Inc. ________ Opinions here are not necessarily those held by my employers. Or mine, either. Maybe. Article 8778 of rec.music.makers.synth: Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!phakt.usc.edu!not-for-mail From: etrinida@phakt.usc.edu (Elson.) Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Date: 15 Jul 1993 17:03:17 -0700 Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Lines: 39 Sender: etrinida@phakt.usc.edu Message-ID: <224r85$9k4@phakt.usc.edu> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu In article dan@korgrd.com (Dan Phillips) writes: >The DX9 also had only 20 programs in memory, and no card slot (it had a >cassette interface instead). It also did not have aftertouch. Also the DX9 did not have the ability for users/programmers to name their own sounds; even the factory sounds did not have names on the LCD display. And unlike the DX21/27/100 series, it lacked support, since it was not totally compatible with the DX21/27/100s, and there were a lack of 3rd party sounds for the DX9 due to this... I think of it this way: Remember the movie "Twins?" Where Arnold Schwarzenegger's character was supposed to be a genetically-engineered "super child" and Danny Devito's character was born as a "side effect?" That's how the DX7 and DX9 were, respectively...or you can use the Presley brothers comparison: Elvis and Aaron Presley were twin brothers, but Elvis went on to become big and famous, while Aaron died an early death. >single timbre at a time (not splits and layers), and a special limited-edition >version of the DX7 II with a 76-note, glow-in-the-dark keyboard, and simulated >gold finish. Strange as it sounds, I am not making that last part up; I even >saw one with my own eyes in the window of Manny's. Incredible Funny, I never got to see one in person...but I did know they existed. They were called the "DX7IIFD Centennial Edition," released in 1987, commemorating the 100th annversary of the Yamaha/Nippon Gakki Corporation. It was featured in the old After Touch magazine (Yamaha's short-lived, thinner version of "Roland User's Group," and I believe it cost about $4500 (!) I think also only (correct me on this somebody) about 100 were made. Making them VERY rare and very valuable. ============================================================================== ______________ /____ / E l s o n T r i n i d a d /____ / etrinida@scf.usc.edu Enjoying the sun & fun in Los Angeles, California, USA! Heard at the US Attorney General's office: "No my first name ain't 'baby,' it's Janet - Ms. Reno if you're nasty!" Article 8799 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!fwi.uva.nl!gene.fwi.uva.nl!rjansen From: rjansen@fwi.uva.nl (Rene M. Jansen) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: <1993Jul16.114638.29282@fwi.uva.nl> Sender: news@fwi.uva.nl Nntp-Posting-Host: gene.fwi.uva.nl Organization: FWI, University of Amsterdam References: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 11:46:38 GMT Lines: 23 dan@korgrd.com (Dan Phillips) writes: >levels). The TX81Z (and perhaps some of the later 4-op keyboards?) had 8 >waveforms to choose from, as opposed to the DX7's sine-wave only architecture. >In some cases, this allows for complex tones which would either take more >operators or be difficult to create on a DX7/equivalent. About those four operators with 8 waveforms to choose: I think these were the DX11, TX81Z, YS100, YS200, B200, QY5 and V50. The V50 was the last real FM-synth yamaha made. I used to have one, but now turned to an SY99. The V50 was equiped with a build in RX8 PCM drumbox, an 8+1 track sequencer and a digtial effect processor. The B200 is an YS200 with built in amplifier (like a keyboard). The QY5 is an YS200 without keys, so a module. Rene. -- ********__________________________________________________********* Rene M. Jansen [rjansen@fwi.uva.nl] Multimedia Lab University of Amsterdam Holland ********__________________________________________________********* Article 8801 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!jlpicard From: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com (Craig Becker) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Originator: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com Sender: news@austin.ibm.com (News id) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 13:41:32 GMT Reply-To: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com References: <1993Jul16.114638.29282@fwi.uva.nl> Organization: IBM Object Technology Products Lines: 24 rjansen@fwi.uva.nl (Rene M. Jansen) writes: > dan@korgrd.com (Dan Phillips) writes: > > >levels). The TX81Z (and perhaps some of the later 4-op keyboards?) had 8 > >waveforms to choose from, as opposed to the DX7's sine-wave only architecture. > >In some cases, this allows for complex tones which would either take more > >operators or be difficult to create on a DX7/equivalent. > > About those four operators with 8 waveforms to choose: I think these were > the DX11, TX81Z, YS100, YS200, B200, QY5 and V50. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Fer what it's worth, a DX11 is basically a TX81Z with a keyboard attached. Interestingly enough, it is "forward" patch compatible with the DX21, DX100, and a few others; that is, you can load a DX21 patch and it'll sound the same. The inverse (loading a DX11 patch onto a DX21) is not always true, due to the DX11 having 8 waveform choices vs the others having only sine. Craig -- -- Craig Becker, Object Technology Products -- -- WE ARE BARNEY. Internet: jlpicard@austin.ibm.com -- -- YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED. IBM TR: jlpicard@woofer.austin.ibm.com -- -- VNET: JLPICARD at AUSVM1 -- Article 8827 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!headwall.Stanford.EDU!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Xenon.Stanford.EDU!dalgic From: dalgic@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ismail Dalgic) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: <1993Jul16.213753.6103@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University. References: <1993Jul16.114638.29282@fwi.uva.nl> <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1993 21:37:53 GMT Lines: 10 In article <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> dan@cafws2.eng.uci.edu (Dan Harkless) writes: > So did Yamaha ever make a 6-op with multiple waveforms? > Yes, SY77/99, TG77. --Ismail Dalgic Article 8835 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!wupost!csus.edu!netcom.com!ladasky From: ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest) References: <1993Jul16.114638.29282@fwi.uva.nl> <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 00:49:02 GMT Lines: 22 In article <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu>, dan@cafws2.eng.uci.edu (Dan Harkless) writes: > > So did Yamaha ever make a 6-op with multiple waveforms? > I've worked with my friend's SY77, and one of the features of its FM engine is that you can run *sampled* waveforms through FM operators. But the (read-only) sample banks of the SY77 don't include the waveforms of the TX81Z. So, the answer to your question is yes, Yamaha made a 6-op system with multi-waveform capability. But those multiple waveforms might not be the ones you want. Personally, I found the modulation of sampled waveforms with FM to be interesting. Hmmm... maybe the SY99, with its ability to record samples, can duplicate the function of the TX81Z exactly. Anyone? -- == John J. Ladasky II ("ii") ========================= ladasky@netcom.COM == "Great composers do not borrow - "Talking about music is like they steal." - John Ladasky ~ - dancing about architecture." (quote stolen from Stravinsky, who o o - Elvis Costello? Laurie stole it from a statement made by > Anderson? Frank Zappa? Pablo Picasso about painting, who \_/ ------------------------------- stole it from...) "Property is theft." - Groucho ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A man w/o charity in his heart - what has he to do with music?" - Confucius ============================================================================ Article 8841 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!lynx.unm.edu!Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu!awkerr From: awkerr@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu (Alan Kerr) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: <1993Jul17.060536.3333@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM References: <1993Jul16.114638.29282@fwi.uva.nl> <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 93 06:05:36 GMT Lines: 16 In article metlay@netcom.com (metlay) writes: >In article <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> dan@cafws2.eng.uci.edu (Dan Harkless) writes: >> So did Yamaha ever make a 6-op with multiple waveforms? > >Nope, nor had they any plans to do so. hey, Mike...... you *sure*? I thought the 'prototype only' V80 was going to be 6op-8wave. While reworking the concept they 'gave up' on it and when 'further' and created the SY series instead. Alan -- Alan W. Kerr awkerr@aoc.nrao.edu National Radio Astronomy Observatory awkerr@nrao.bitnet Socorro, NM, USA uunet!nrao.edu!awkerr Article 8847 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!metlay From: metlay@netcom.com (metlay) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: Summary: point counterpoint Organization: Atomic City References: <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> <1993Jul17.060536.3333@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1993 19:52:57 GMT Lines: 26 In article <1993Jul17.060536.3333@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> awkerr@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu (Alan Kerr) writes: >In article metlay@netcom.com (metlay) writes: >>In article <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> dan@cafws2.eng.uci.edu (Dan Harkless) writes: >>> So did Yamaha ever make a 6-op with multiple waveforms? >>Nope, nor had they any plans to do so. > >hey, Mike...... you *sure*? I thought the 'prototype only' V80 was >going to be 6op-8wave. While reworking the concept they 'gave up' on >it and when 'further' and created the SY series instead. No and yes. The V80FD was completed and prototyped, and was a sine-only machine. There was never any multiwave capability in it, nor was there intended to be. However, you're right in pointing out that the RCM (sic) machines, the SY77 and SY99, by allowing the use of samples as operators, are in essence multiwave FM boxes. However, the complexity of such waves has led to a very limited use of full-bore RCM; few of the factory patches used it, and the vast majority of the popular sounds on the machines (not including the RCM fanatix here, of course) were the sample based ones. This led directly to the development of the SY85, which dropped FM at last. I would be surprised if we ever saw another hardware-based FM machine. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TECH SUPPORT ANSWER OF THE WEEK: "You can not afraid to do it, because MIDI is optocoupled. Until no message is actually transmitted, there shouldn't be no unexpected effect too, because the current loop is unactive at idle time (take care on the 'active sensing')." Is this a thing of beauty or WHAT? Article 8852 of rec.music.makers.synth: Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!wupost!gumby!yale!babss!quantum From: quantum@mfci.UUCP (Quantum Audio Concepts) Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: <1687@b1.babss.UUCP> Date: 17 Jul 93 22:32:02 GMT References: <1993Jul16.114638.29282@fwi.uva.nl> <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu> Sender: quantum@babss.UUCP Reply-To: quantum@mfci.UUCP (Quantum Audio Concepts) Organization: Bell Atlantic Business Systems Service Branford, Ct. Lines: 25 In article ladasky@netcom.com (John J. Ladasky II) writes: >In article <2C471775.15919@news.service.uci.edu>, >dan@cafws2.eng.uci.edu (Dan Harkless) writes: >> >> So did Yamaha ever make a 6-op with multiple waveforms? >> > > I've worked with my friend's SY77, and one of the features of its >FM engine is that you can run *sampled* waveforms through FM operators. That is what they call RCM, where a sample can be used to modulate the carrier operator, as opposed to having an opertator modulate the carrier. By multiple waveforms I think he means different wave shapes for the operators themselves. The DX7 used sine waves, the TX81Z had a few other shapes (8 total?). The SY77/99 has 16 wave shapes for the operators, as well as 3 feedback loops, and 42? algorithms. >But the (read-only) sample banks of the SY77 don't include the waveforms >of the TX81Z. So, the answer to your question is yes, Yamaha made a 6-op >system with multi-waveform capability. But those multiple waveforms might >not be the ones you want. I don't know how similar the waves are. You could look at diagrams of the shapes, but who knows how acurate that would be. Article 8855 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!spool.mu.edu!nigel.msen.com!well!cbm From: cbm@well.sf.ca.us (Chris Muir) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: Summary: SY77/TG77 have 16 waveforms. Sender: news@well.sf.ca.us Nntp-Posting-Host: well.sf.ca.us Organization: The Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA References: <1993Jul17.060536.3333@Mr-Hyde.aoc.nrao.edu> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 1993 06:20:22 GMT Lines: 19 In article metlay@netcom.com (metlay) writes: >However, you're right in pointing out that the RCM (sic) >machines, the SY77 and SY99, by allowing the use of samples as operators, >are in essence multiwave FM boxes. However, the complexity of such waves >has led to a very limited use of full-bore RCM; few of the factory patches >used it, and the vast majority of the popular sounds on the machines (not >including the RCM fanatix here, of course) were the sample based ones. Actually the TG77 has 16 waveforms in its FM section. To quote the manual: "Each operator can produce sixteen different waveforms; a sine wave with no harmonics, and fifteen other more complex waveforms containing additional harmonics." These are a superset of the TX81Z waves if my memory serves me well. -- __________________________________________________________________________ Chris Muir | "There is no language in our cbm@well.sf.ca.us | lungs to tell the world just {hplabs,pacbell,ucbvax,apple}!well!cbm | how we feel" - A. Partridge Article 8887 of rec.music.makers.synth: Path: news.service.uci.edu!network.ucsd.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!corax.udac.uu.se!Kiev.docs.uu.se!janerl From: janerl@Kiev.docs.uu.se (Jan Erlandsen) Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Date: 19 Jul 93 07:36:03 GMT Organization: Uppsala University Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <9307172347.ab09130@post.demon.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: kiev.docs.uu.se cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk (C A S S I E L) writes: >> So did Yamaha ever make a 6-op with multiple waveforms? >Not the SY77/TG77/SY99? I know they have all sorts of bells and whistles in >terms of operator placement. Hmm: what about the V-80? Huh? I am a happy (no, correction: 'drooling silly happy') owner of a Yamaha TG-77, and I can tell you it has 16 various waveforms to choose from in every operator. The user manual even states each waveform's shape and spectrum! Applause, Yamaha! The waveforms are mostly variations of the sinewave, but there are a few one-sided waves, and a few saw-like ones, but NO true saw, trinagle or square waves. Probably because those contain discontinuities in their derivatives, which probably would cause a lot of overtones. Well, this about that! Hope some of you feel enlightened! May The Force be with You! Jan "Electric Cowboy" Erlandsen Article 8998 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!wupost!uunet!pipex!sunic!news.lth.se!axisab!ricard From: ricard@axis.se (Ricard Wolf) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: <1993Jul21.073552.29754@axis.se> Organization: Axis Communications AB, Lund Sweden References: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 07:35:52 GMT Lines: 65 In article dan@korgrd.com (Dan Phillips) writes: >The rack-mount card frame came with a variable number of tone modules; I've >seen 2, 4, and 8-unit modules, called the TX216, TX416, and TX816, >respectively. These modules had a very limited user interface, consisting of >a few buttons and a two-character LED, and were not programmable from the You could buy the modules seperately (they were called TF-1) to add to your as-yet-uncomplete TX216 rack. >front panel. The TX7 was a table-top module, also with synthesis capabilities >equivalent to the DX7, which had an LCD display and allowed setup of >performance parameters (such as unison or poly mode) but, again, no actual >patch editing onboard. All of these modules can use SysEx dumps of DX7 >programs. The TX-7 could also store performance parameters per patch for an accompanying DX-7 thus overcoming one of the original DX-7's shortcomings. >The envelopes of the DX7, DX9, TX7, and TX816 were also superior to those of >the DX11, DX21, DX100, TX81Z etc., with considerably more stages (4 rates and The DX-9 and DX-7, interestingly enough, use exactly the same sound hardware. I.e. a DX-9 is a DX-7 where 2 operators are unused (minus of course fixed freq operator operation, touch sesitivity et al). You can load Sysex dumps of DX-9 sounds into a DX-7, where they get the names DX9 1 ... DX9 20 or something like that. It doesn't work always though - can't figure out why. In some cases I think you could also load DX-7 sounds into a DX-9 - the extra operators would be ignored, but I'm not too sure of this (could check it out relatively simply though...) >The DX7 II used 16-bit internals, as opposed to the 12-bit DX7 etc. The II I don't really agree here ... the DX-7 II uses a 16-bit D/A with the highmost bit unused ... i.e. 15 bits. The DX-7 uses a 12-bit D/A with 2 extra 'compression' bits, making 14 bits all-in-all. However, this is not true 14-bits, so the DX-7 does have a grungier sound than the 'II, and will cut through much better in a mix. Interestingly enough, sounds that sound "dirty" (with FM noise in the form of whistles and other annoyances especially on tones with low pitch and little harmonic content) on the Dx-7 also sound that way on the DX-7 II. So it's not _that_ much better. I prefer the original, especially with a DX-MAX or SPX add-on-board to give double and quad capability with detune, to the DX-7 II, although the 'II can be split and made 8-part multitimbral, of course. >There were several versions of the DX7 II, including the DX7 IIfd (with floppy >disk), the DX7 IIs (or perhaps the DX7s ??), which I believe allowed only a >single timbre at a time (not splits and layers), and a special limited-edition >version of the DX7 II with a 76-note, glow-in-the-dark keyboard, and simulated >gold finish. Strange as it sounds, I am not making that last part up; I even >saw one with my own eyes in the window of Manny's. Incredible. I'll second that; I saw one in Tokyo in '89 or something. Didn't know the keyboard glowed in the dark though (but the lights in the shop were on so I couldn't tell). Interesting. A bit of trivia : the DX11 is called the V2 in Japan (first of the V-series), however, they figured that 'V2' had a bad ring to it in the West (think of the WW2 bomb) and so changed the name. /Ricard -- Ricard Wolf / | \ / | /- email: ricard@axis.se Axis Communications AB /__| \/ | \__ uucp: axisab.se!ricard S - 223 70 LUND / | /\ | \ Tel: +46 46 19 18 63 SWEDEN / | / \ | \__/ Fax: +46 46 13 61 30 Article 9000 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!xlink.net!news.dfn.de!news.uni-bielefeld.de!techfak.uni-bielefeld.de!bsieker From: bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Bernd Sieker) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Sender: news@hermes.hrz.uni-bielefeld.de (News Administrator) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 11:10:09 GMT References: <1993Jul21.073552.29754@axis.se> Nntp-Posting-Host: moos.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de Organization: Universitaet Bielefeld, Technische Fakultaet. Lines: 50 In article <1993Jul21.073552.29754@axis.se>, ricard@axis.se (Ricard Wolf) writes: [...] |> and quad capability with detune, to the DX-7 II, although the 'II can |> be split and made 8-part multitimbral, of course. Huh? 8part multitimbral? Am I missing some long searched-for feature on my beloved DX7 II-D? A stock DX7 II is only two part multitimbral with fixed voice allocation (8 voices each channel) As far as I know the DX7 II can be made 8-part multitimbral with the Grey Matter E!-Extension, but I think that holds true for the old DX7 as well (anyone confirm or deny?) |> |> >There were several versions of the DX7 II, including the DX7 IIfd (with floppy |> >disk), the DX7 IIs (or perhaps the DX7s ??), which I believe allowed only a |> >single timbre at a time (not splits and layers), and a special limited-edition |> >version of the DX7 II with a 76-note, glow-in-the-dark keyboard, and simulated |> >gold finish. Strange as it sounds, I am not making that last part up; I even |> >saw one with my own eyes in the window of Manny's. Incredible. |> |> I'll second that; I saw one in Tokyo in '89 or something. Didn't know the |> keyboard glowed in the dark though (but the lights in the shop were on so |> I couldn't tell). Interesting. Yeah, I was a special edition (only 100 pieces) to the 100th anniversary of Yamaha in 1998. At that year the DX7 II-FD was their top model, so they made their top model even nicer. Not too sure about the finish, wasn't that just silver with gold letters? In a german Keyboard magazine there was a guy who wanted to sell his (I think it was called Centinnel or smthng like that), but he didn't manage to, as he asked a too high price (DM 2970). I think it was really worth that price, but I saw his advert 4 months in the magazine. Cu, Bernd -- _ Real Life Bernd Sieker, Universitaet Bielefeld only // IRC Pink Amiga__// HAM Radio DG 6 YHI \X/ email bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de -------------------------------------- And remember: If you have enjoyed watching the show only half as much as we've enjoyed doing it, then we've enjoyed it twice as much as you. Ha ha ha. (M. P. F. C.) Article 8909 of rec.music.makers.synth: Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!destroyer!cs.ubc.ca!usenet From: croehrig@cs.ubc.ca (Chris Roehrig) Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Subject: FM operator waveforms (Re: Various DX7 models) Date: 19 Jul 1993 19:32:28 GMT Organization: Computer Science, University of B.C., Vancouver, B.C., Canada Lines: 19 Message-ID: <22essc$1g4@cs.ubc.ca> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: jax.cs.ubc.ca In article janerl@Kiev.docs.uu.se (Jan Erlandsen) writes: > The [SY77] waveforms are mostly variations of the sinewave, but > there are a few one-sided waves, and a few saw-like ones, but NO > true saw, trinagle or square waves. Probably because those contain > discontinuities in their derivatives, which probably would cause > a lot of overtones. I've often wondered why Yamaha only included operator waveforms that were represented by smooth, continuous functions. Do you really get unusable sounds if you use a square or triangle wave as a modulator? (Any comments from home-grown FM experimenters?) I'd have thought that they'd be useful as carriers at least. Could it have more to do with mathematical tractability? :-) -- Chris Roehrig (croehrig@cs.ubc.ca) Small Neural Systems Group Dept. of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Canada Article 9007 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!newcastle.ac.uk!capella.dur.ac.uk!des3den From: d.j.e.nunn@durham.ac.uk (Douglas Nunn) Subject: Re: FM operator waveforms (Re: Various DX7 models) Nntp-Posting-Host: capella.dur.ac.uk Message-ID: Organization: School of Engineering, University of Durham, UK Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1993 16:45:27 GMT References: <22essc$1g4@cs.ubc.ca> <22h070INNkbl@CS.UTK.EDU> <1993Jul20.201853.22338@bbx.basis.com> Lines: 28 In article <1993Jul20.201853.22338@bbx.basis.com>, scott@bbx.basis.com (Scott Amspoker) writes: |> In article <22h070INNkbl@CS.UTK.EDU> wtkwest@duncan.cs.utk.edu (William TK West) writes: |> >In article <22essc$1g4@cs.ubc.ca>, croehrig@cs.ubc.ca (Chris Roehrig) writes: |> >| |> >|> |> >|> I've often wondered why Yamaha only included operator waveforms that |> >|> were represented by smooth, continuous functions. |> |> I don't see any mathematical reason for not providing a sawtooth as |> an operator/modulator (espcially since the SY77/99 allow you to do |> exactly that via RCM). I always thought Yamaha overlooked a great |> feature. Can you imagine 6 sawtooths in parallel (six 1-op stacks) and |> taking up only *one* voice channel? Still, on the SY77/99 you can get |> pretty close to a pure sawtooth with 2 operators and 1 feedback loop. |> Since you can have up to 3 feedback loops you can have 3 stacks (with |> 2-ops each) creating a pretty thick analog-style sound. |> The maths of FM is ugly enough, but a sawtooth isn't band-limited, so if you use it in FM, there's a fair chance of aliasing. I'm not saying this couldn't be musical, but the maths would be hideous, and the timbre would vary weirdly depending on the note. (But the SY77 does have a rectified sine wave as an operator, and this isn't band-limited either. !?!) By the way, the SY77 doesn't strictly use FM, it uses Phase Modulation. Article 8914 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!usenet From: dacc@cmp-rt.music.uiuc.edu (Andrew C. Crowell) Subject: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 manual and DX9 information Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1993 22:46:36 GMT Message-ID: Distribution: usa References: <1993Jul14.121313.22771@hellgate.utah.edu> Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner) Organization: University of Illinois School of Music Lines: 18 In article <1993Jul14.121313.22771@hellgate.utah.edu> jstone%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jim Stone) writes: > >Also, could someone explain the differences between the Yamaha DX7 and some >of the other DX models (specifically, the DX9)? Why are the other models >worth much less (except for the DX1) and what's so great about the DX1? What's great about the DX1 is that it's the _only_ DX-series synth where the patch data was implemented with the controls, using separate numeric LED displays at each control. In short, it's the only DX synth where you get a 100% clear (for people not versed in the algorithmic DX voodoo) explanation of what's going on in your patch. Sort of like an intermediate stage between Yamaha's "controls for everything poly-analog" synths and their "this weenie-esque display of gibberish is all you get" synths. D.A.C. Crowell Computer Music Project/School of Music University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign (dacc@cmp-rt.music.uiuc.edu) Article 8959 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!umn.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!metlay From: metlay@netcom.com (metlay) Subject: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 manual and DX9 information Message-ID: Summary: The DX1 Organization: Atomic City References: <1993Jul14.121313.22771@hellgate.utah.edu> Distribution: usa Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1993 17:40:11 GMT Lines: 26 In article dacc@cmp-rt.music.uiuc.edu (Andrew C. Crowell) writes: >What's great about the DX1 is that it's the _only_ DX-series synth where the >patch data was implemented with the controls, using separate numeric LED >displays at each control. In short, it's the only DX synth where you get a >100% clear (for people not versed in the algorithmic DX voodoo) explanation >of what's going on in your patch. Sort of like an intermediate stage between >Yamaha's "controls for everything poly-analog" synths and their "this >weenie-esque display of gibberish is all you get" synths. It also had more polyphony than the other synths (except the DX5), a large weighted wooden keyboard with polyphonic aftertouch (one of the first), a generous selection of performance controls, and the ability to load two memory cartridges at once, one for one half of the architecture and one for the other half. It originally retailed for $14,000 or thereabouts, and has plummeted in price over the ensuing decade. One was sitting in a used gear store in Pgh for over a year with a $1000 price tag; many people came in and played it lovingly, only to consider its weight and size and give up on the idea. It was, along with the many vintage guitars in the store, the most lamented casualty of the fire that destroyed the store earlier this year. Alas. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TECH SUPPORT ANSWER OF THE WEEK: "You can not afraid to do it, because MIDI is optocoupled. Until no message is actually transmitted, there shouldn't be no unexpected effect too, because the current loop is unactive at idle time (take care on the 'active sensing')." Is this a thing of beauty or WHAT? Article 9241 of rec.music.makers.synth: Newsgroups: rec.music.makers.synth Path: news.service.uci.edu!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!uunet!pipex!sunic!news.lth.se!axisab!ricard From: ricard@axis.se (Ricard Wolf) Subject: Re: Various DX7 models (Was: Re: WANTED: LXP-5 etc.) Message-ID: <1993Jul27.081726.14010@axis.se> Organization: Axis Communications AB, Lund Sweden References: <1993Jul21.073552.29754@axis.se> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1993 08:17:26 GMT Lines: 54 In article bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de (Bernd Sieker) writes: >In article <1993Jul21.073552.29754@axis.se>, ricard@axis.se (Ricard Wolf) writes: > >[...] >|> and quad capability with detune, to the DX-7 II, although the 'II can >|> be split and made 8-part multitimbral, of course. > >Huh? 8part multitimbral? Am I missing some long searched-for feature on >my beloved DX7 II-D? A stock DX7 II is only two part multitimbral with >fixed voice allocation (8 voices each channel) As far as I know the >DX7 II can be made 8-part multitimbral with the Grey Matter >E!-Extension, but I think that holds true for the old DX7 as well >(anyone confirm or deny?) You are mostly right; any synth using the 'new' Yamaha 6-op chips, like the DX-7 II series, and also the TX-802 rackmount can be made 8-part multitimbral. The '802 is multitimbral to start with; the DX-7 require the E!-board for this. As far as I know, the old DX-7 can _not_ be made multitimbral; having studied the service manual for the DX-7 this seems to be true, since there is only one chip register for feedback and algorithm, not eight as would otherwise be necessary. On the other hand the DX-7 II chips don't have any more addressing pins, so some sneaky multiplexing must be at stake here...anyone have any more info? There was an E!-board for the old DX-7, but it didn't add mutltimbrality, however, it did add a lot of other functions, but the DUAL and QUAD modes of operation present in the SPX and DX-MAX boards wasn't as useful, so I've never got an E! for my old DX-7. >Yeah, I was a special edition (only 100 pieces) to the 100th >anniversary of Yamaha in 1998. At that year the DX7 II-FD was their >top model, so they made their top model even nicer. > >Not too sure about the finish, wasn't that just silver with gold >letters? Could well be. >In a german Keyboard magazine there was a guy who wanted to sell his >(I think it was called Centinnel or smthng like that), but he didn't >manage to, as he asked a too high price (DM 2970). I think it was >really worth that price, but I saw his advert 4 months in the >magazine. It's probably just a collectors item more than a useful machine at this price...like the last minimoogs with brass name plates and solid walnut cases or whatever the story was... /Ricard -- Ricard Wolf / | \ / | /- email: ricard@axis.se Axis Communications AB /__| \/ | \__ uucp: axisab.se!ricard S - 223 70 LUND / | /\ | \ Tel: +46 46 19 18 63 SWEDEN / | / \ | \__/ Fax: +46 46 13 61 30