Interesting. I agree that the article is an exaggeration.
It could be argued that the DX7 had a significant negative musical contribution. Oodles of sounds at the expense of musical expression. The musician became alienated from the process of making the sound. The keyboard player's job moved from playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts that aren't guitars.
And the DX7 was way too difficult to program. Sort of like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube; you can be one twist away and not know it. And since whole point of synthesis was for the musician to explore and tweak their sound, the DX7 was sort of an anti-synth.
That said...
Maybe it was an accidental choice of words in the article, but I would also say that the DX7 was, indeed, one of the most important advances in terms of musical engineering.
Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital audio filters, which require millions of multiplication/accumulation operations a second. The microprocessors of the day were not up to the task. TRW offered a 16x16 bit multiplier chip, but it cost around $300 for the chip alone (!!!) and required significant support circuitry.
FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer featured it in the 60's. John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.
Then some smart folks realized that FM synthesis could be implemented entirely in add and ROM lookup operations, which is downright easy in 1983 technology. Then they refined FM some more so it could produce a wide timbral range from the single engine.
> FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer featured it in the 60's.
But the critical feature of FM synthesis that made it usable as a musical element was linear FM. Early synthesizers (like, I presume Buchla's) sported "FM" but it was exponential due to volt/oct.
> John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.
?? Chowning's paper doesn't mention phase modulation at all, does it? His equation is for frequency modulation.
I would presume that the relationships between phase and frequency modulation were known a half-century before Chowning.
> Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital audio filters, which require millions of multiplication/accumulation operations a second.
This seems high? A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample? This would seem to be in the same level of complexity as six carrier/modulator interactions; you have to do a multiply to do a lookup after all. Or is the issue that the multiplies had to be 12-16 bit?
> Maybe it was an accidental choice of words in the article, but I would also say that the DX7 was, indeed, one of the most important advances in terms of musical engineering.
I think it's easy to argue that the DX7 was the most important synthesizer in history. People forget that the DX7 caused a near-death experience for the industry as a whole as analog synth makers were put out of business by the DX7 and its progeny. It also heralded the arrival of commercially viable FM, and created a revolution not just in synthesizers but in PC sound cards, (ugh) ringtones, you name it.
>> John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.
> ?? Chowning's paper doesn't mention phase modulation at all, does it? His equation is for frequency modulation.
>
>https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~fessler/course/100/misc/chowning...
>
> I would presume that the relationships between phase and frequency modulation were known a half-century before Chowning.
Chowning says his equation is for frequency modulation, but the equation is actually phase modulation.
Chowning's equation(1):
e = A sin(𝛼t + I sinβt)
That's phase modulation. Frequency modulation would be:
e = A sin((𝛼 + I sinβt) t)
Very different.
That's okay; it's the first academic paper on the topic, and things were still a little wobbly.
After the paper, he and others refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and built digital implementations.
>> Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital audio filters, which require millions of multiplication/accumulation operations a second.
> This seems high? A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample? This would seem to be in the same level of complexity as six carrier/modulator interactions; you have to do a multiply to do a lookup after all. Or is the issue that the multiplies had to be 12-16 bit?
For microprocessors in 1983, multiply instructions, if they existed at all, involved a lot of shift and add cycles. That took a long time.
A simple filter might need 4 multiplies and accumulates. Times 44,000 times a second, for each sample. Times the number of voices; 16 in the case of the DX7.
Now you are easily over a million multiplies a second.
And even though the original DX7 is 12 bits, I think you'd need those multiplies to be 16x16 bits for accumulated error issues.
So the DX7 was an alternative to having to implement digital filters in 1983 technology. They could introduce a digital synth at a very reasonable price.
> > FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer featured it in the 60's.
> But the critical feature of FM synthesis that made it usable as a musical element was linear FM. Early synthesizers (like, I presume Buchla's) sported "FM" but it was exponential due to volt/oct.
No; the first Buchla oscillator, the 158, did indeed have linear FM.
And that was intentional. Early Buchla synths didn't have much going on in the filter department, so instead he made the oscillators extra expressive.
> No; the first Buchla oscillator, the 158, did indeed have linear FM.
Could you point to an authoritative source on this? The Model 100 owner's manual says this about the 158: "The frequency modulation control require an external signal input, which determines the rate (speed) of the frequency modulation (vibrato)...". The fact that it says "vibrato" would imply exponential FM, wouldn't it?
Actually, after watching this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qyPIX61rg) I'm less convinced that the 158 had linear FM. As he turns the FM knob, the pitch changes. This would be expected for exponential FM.
> This would seem to be in the same level of complexity as six carrier/modulator interactions; you have to do a multiply to do a lookup after all.
The Yamaha FM synthesis chips do zero multiplications. Everything is done with additions in log scale, with a lookup table for log-sine and another lookup table for exp. I’m unaware of a technique for implementing digital filters without multiplication.
I don’t know why lookup would require a multiplication. Recall that the Yamaha FM chips do not use interpolation.
> A second-order digital filter requires what, about 4 stores, recalls, and multiplies per sample?
This is true today using something like the Chamberlin form for a state variable filter. I don't think that level of optimization had been discovered yet in the DX7 timeframe.
Also, for adequate quality you want to oversample at least 2x, preferably at least 4x.
And 16 bits usually won't be enough headroom in a digital filter for good audio quality. Too much truncation.
The difference between analog and digital FM/PM is quite immense though. It's very hard to get good sounding analog FM (e.g. on my modular system) due to the instability of the oscillators. It's mostly used for weird sounds or with short envelopes to accent the attack phase.
In that sense, DX7 et al where a huge leap as they brought an extensive sound range to the table (even though deeply in the uncanny valley for some of them)
I would agree that the DX7's sound is really dated has honestly really negatively impacted some of my favorite songs recorded in the the 1980's [0][1], but I really cannot think of an specific instrument as distinctive and widespread as it. The Telecaster and Stratocaster were very popular, but it's very tough to pick them out in a recording from other types of electric guitars. Hammond Organs are distinct and popular, but nowhere near as ubiquitous as the DX7.
...okay, maybe in the 80s. But in the 90s/2000s they were back in full force.
One of the best concerts of my life was The Mars Volta in the early 2000s, and Ikey, the keyboard player (RIP) left me speechless with his Hammond soloing.
Could I ask the source for these numbers? I've been trying to find some production numbers for popular synths (including submodels, e.g. all Minimoog or Prophet 5 versions combined etc), but haven't really found anything properly sourced/cited.
I don’t think it’s that hard to pick out a Strat or Tele in a recording, they both have fairly unique sounds and the only guitars which sound like them are direct clones. At least at low to medium gain levels, but that’s where Strats and Teles are mostly used.
Teles are easy to pick out in country tunes, and guitar-based country sounds very different when people use something else.
Same for Strats in blues-infused pop. I'm not a super fan but a lot of young people today would recognise the sound of John Mayer's clean Strat tones in pop-blues, for instance.
I don't agree - if you play guitar a bit, it's pretty easy to tell a telecaster from a stratocaster or a les paul, whether clean or distorted (in their traditional forms) on most any recording.
Just as a Fender is always played through an amp, a DX7 would never go dry into the mixing console. What we think of as the DX7 sound is almost always a combination of the Yamaha chip and a smorgasbord of effects units, usually at least reverb but likely also chorus, delay, compression, and even distortion, not to mention extensive EQ.
I think the TR-808 is the only one that might qualify.
Although there are loads of synthesizers that were extremely influential in the industry and are immediately recognizable to hardcore synth fans (M1, D-50, Prophet 5, TB-303, Minimoog etc), I doubt there are many that the average listener would consider to be "distinctive".
This is what makes the TR-808 special, I think, even though there are lots of other drum machines that can make the same sounds. It's become a part of the standard lexicon of hip-hop, R&B and electronic music. I imagine a fair amount of casual pop music fans know that when someone says an 808 beat is about to drop, they're gonna get that booming bass drum and typewriter snare, maybe a cowbell.
I'm not sure the DX7 ever had the same widespread name recognition, even back in its heyday. And outside of synths, I don't think the average person connects specific guitar models to distinct sounds either, even if they know the names in the abstract. The 808 might be unique in this. Then again, rock music fans might never even have heard of it?
Have you ever listened to this Twenty Thousand Hertz podcast on the 808? It is a good deep dive into its history, its distinctive sound, and what made it as influential as it was.
> I think the TR-808 is the only one that might qualify.
Only? No way! :D
The Roland TR-909 is also extremely popular and was considered the sound of techno and house even after the TR-808 started to fade outside hip-hop. In the mid-90s it was one of the first drum machines to start being cloned by new manufacturers due to the demand. The bass drum is still used as the foundation for a lot of EDM. It never went away... while the 808 which is back but was considered passé even in hip-hop for a short while.
The TB-303 Bass Synth is also extremely sought after. It was the sound of Acid House in the late 80s and was also a mainstay in the 90s for a lot of producers, even though it's limited. Today it's kind of a novelty but you still hear it in some tracks. More recently Behringer made a clone and Roland reissued it.
Both of those two got in the vernacular of EDM fans at the time.
Also the TR-606 has some cult status due to being used by artists like Autechre, Aphex Twin and Plastikman among others, which are sort of "musician's musicians" among the electronic music crowd, although it wasn't as famous as 303/808/909 among general listeners.
I think this is where the conversation starts to get a bit far away from the original topic, which was about how the DX7 changed modern music.
I am also a big fan of electronic music and owned several of the x0x synths, but they're only really recognizable to people who are already into synths. Of course if you play an 808 and 909 next to one another, they don't sound the same. But if you play a random piece of music and ask a casual listener what drum machine it features, I don't think they would be able to tell you. (Unless, perhaps, it's an 808!)
Even something that synth nuts know to be as unique and genre-defining as a TB-303, to the casual listener it isn't distinguishable from an SH-101 or any other analog monosynth. People might know what an acid line sounds like, but they don't tend to have the same kind of ear that musicians do to be able to spot one synth model from the other in the final mix.
When I think about a synth so distinctive and widespread that it changed modern music, I think about something that average people who aren't musicians can identify. The DX7 might have been that, since it was the first synthesizer that really went mass-market. All the synths before that were "niche" instruments, but the DX7 made synth music mainstream, so perhaps it was very identifiable. But then the floodgates opened, so it might only have lasted for a few years.
The 808, though, I think a lot of people still really know and understand what kind of "sound" that is. But I could be wrong.
I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream.
A lot of pop from before was already using synths. Funkytown was a Billboard #1 hit 4 years before the DX7, and so was Vangelis, Human League, Eurythmics and Owner of a Lonely Heart a year or two after that, not to mention lots of Michael Jackson and even the Ghostbuster theme... and that's just the Billboard #1 hits. Even Van Halen released "Jump" a year before the DX7, and England was already having synth bands since the late 80s. People were more than used to synthesizers by the time the DX7 hit.
And about the 909/303, back in the 80s/90s a lot of EDM tracks had 909 in the title, including a Daft Punk track. Same for some 303 tracks (but Acid was way more obscure). House and Techno people definitely heard about those. In fact, they were probably more popular than the DX7.
Sure none of those comes close to the 808 today, but that's because the 808 itself had a resurgence in the mid-2000s, and hip hop only got bigger since them.
You are correct that synth music as a genre existed before the DX7, and that synths were used in popular songs even going back into the 70s. But what this article is discussing, and what most people discuss when they talk about the DX7, is how its sales dwarfed that of any synth that came before it. It didn't just become a piece of equipment used by major studios in countless hits across many different genres, it also became an affordable and useful instrument for working musicians across the board.
Right up the top of this thread the first commenter explained it well: "The keyboard player's job moved from playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts that aren't guitars."
What I don't know is if the DX7 itself was particularly recognized as a DX7 by most of the people listening to music that was made with it. My guess is that most casual listeners still just considered it "the thing that the keyboard player is playing". This is why I am not sure that it is as uniquely distinctive as the commenter near the top of this thread suggested.
Of course trained musicians can identify a DX7 in a track, just as they might be able to hear the difference between a Stratocaster and a Telecaster. Dedicated fans might also hear the difference, if they're interested enough to pay attention. But someone just listening to a tune on the radio, humming along to it, I don't think they're going to go "yep, that's the good ol' DX7 electric piano patch" or "yep that's a classic Strat sound".
Personally, I think laypeople do identify the 808 in this way, just judging from anecdotal conversations with people who are not musicians, not DJs, not "serious" music fans, just regular people. This is why I think the 808 is an interesting instrument, and perhaps special in a way that the DX7 wasn't, and the TB-303 and TR-909 weren't. That doesn't mean those other synths aren't special for their own reasons, I was just commenting on something I perceive to be unique about the 808 - a relatively widespread understanding of what its "sound" is.
If you are a hardcore music fan or a musician, it can be illuminating to do some testing with someone who isn't. Play them a song, point out some piece of equipment, explain to them why this song has a 909 hihat but that song has a 707 hihat, and how you can tell the difference. Then play them another song and see if they can identify the hihat. 9 times out of 10 that's not what people are listening for. That's not how they experience music, they don't break it down like that.
I'm not really disputing sales, I'm more disputing the claim that it changed music or made synth music mainstream. Synth music was mainstream before the DX7. And I don't really remember non-musicians talking about the DX7 the way most prog music fans (and also some Clockwork Orange fans) seem to know Moogs. Or Hammonds. 80s pop music fans don't seem to be the kind to do reminisce about synths.
About 909s and 303s, like I said, they were special when they were in their heyday. Most people knew them by name, since there were lots of track titles, there was a TB-303 reference in Ghost in the Shell, and there are some TR-909 and TB-303 tattoos if you search Google... I'm not disputing that 808s are more famous now that hip hop is very mainstream, the 808 kick drum is in vogue for years and Kanye albums have 808s in their title. Like I said, you have to keep those things into context when making a comparison, otherwise only the 808 will ever count as "important"... that's it. Maybe the Moog is a better example?
On the DX7 thing, I expressed myself poorly, I didn't mean it made synth music as a genre mainstream, but I do think the original commenter was correct to say that it changed how synths were used in music simply due to it being so affordable and versatile. Now instead of cover bands having additional members or multi-instrumentalists to play brass or fiddle or whatever, they could just have the keyboard player fill that role too. With the DX7 it became "good enough" for a single synth to cover all of those sounds. It unlocked a door that later on the M1 and many other sample-based synths walked through.
On the 909/303, I don't dispute they were incredibly influential in the rave scene, especially in the 90s. I am one of those people with a 303 tattoo so I know very well what a reputation they had. But also I have some perspective on how small and dynamic that scene turned out to be in the greater scheme of things. Most of the ravers I know from back in the day couldn't pick a 303 in a song and don't even listen to acid or techno music any more.
I think a good comparison to an 808 is a Theremin. Lots of people, even people who don't listen to electronic music or hip-hop know the names of these instruments and can probably pick one out of a song. I'd see the 909 or 303 more like a Strat or a Tele - still very influential and recognizable to people who are interested, but perhaps not so much in the mainstream consciousness.
But this is all opinion just based on anecdotes, so I am open to the idea I might be overestimating the cultural impact of one bit of gear or the other.
> But someone just listening to a tune on the radio, humming along to it, I don't think they're going to go "yep, that's the good ol' DX7 electric piano patch" or "yep that's a classic Strat sound".
At least in the U.S., lay people are notoriously bad at even knowing the names of instruments, much less pinpointing them in the overall musical texture.
About the only test you could do would be to, say, replace the Theremin in Good Vibrations with a string synth from the DX7. Most people have never heard of either instrument, but many would instantly recognize that something is off in that example. Probably the same if you replace a stratacaster, vocoder, etc., in a track they're familiar with, especially if you substitute it with something from a different historical period.
Other than that, I'm afraid all that's being measured is the effect of lack of funding on basic music education in the U.S. :)
> I dunno... I disagree with the assertion that the DX7 was the synth that made synth music mainstream.
For a polyphonic synth though it was a game-changer, it did make it affordable, but so did sh-101 and countless other synths but those weren't polyphonic. Roland Juno could be said, it wasn't revolutionary but more evolutionary in electronic music making. Here's a good article on DCO vs VCO https://blog.thea.codes/the-design-of-the-juno-dco/ and recent discussion here:
I don't disagree about its technical merits as a synth, as an instrument, or what it did to music makers. I was merely disputing the claim that it made synth music mainstream.
Agree with you on the 909 and especially the 303, the synth that birthed the acid genre and is still in use to create new music, check out Tin Man Neo Neo Acid. Hard disagree on Plastikman being a musicians musician though. He was beyond huge in the 90ies, saw a guy with a Plastikman tattoo covering his whole back. Richie Hawtin went on to become one of the top DJs in the world. One year he played on four new years eve parties, travelling by private plane.
I think that there is a big difference in how easy it is to capture the, I don't know, "general musical identity" of a TB or TR with a much less constrained drum machine or bassline synth. FM synths like the DX7 are notoriously difficult to control, it's as if they were deliberately amplifying the tiniest differences.
If a piece of music can "sound Roland x0x" even if it was made on an entirely different process and any arguments about possible lack of an actual Roland in the production is strictly the realm of nerd nitpicking. Everyone else simply enjoys (or doesn't, but not because of lack of synth authenticity). But if a musician goes for "that FM sound" chances are the result will be very different depending on what actual synth is used.
The Roland TB-303--definitely unique--for a while there in the late 80's and through the 90's seemed like it was everywhere in any electronica/techno-based song.
The DX7 can lay claim to being one of the most important advances in the history of modern popular music. Perhaps not since Leo Fender attached a pick-up to a six-string in 1949
Statements like this are, exaggerated, to say the least. While the DX7 is undoubtedly prolific in 80s pop, it was just a synth that was successful for its price point (and timing!) as called out in the article. Case in point that today, nearly all the major manufacturers are building re-issues and the most coveted are those the analog counterparts of the Dx-7 (the sequential prophets, Oberheims, ARP...). FM has no way succeeded the typical subtractive synthesis of the analog machines.
source: I write 80s influenced music and collect synths
The DX series is having a bit of a revival: Yamaha's Reface, Korg's Volca, and a few others. The DX are also in demand again: not so long ago I bought a TX7 for around $75, now they sell for $350. The DX100/DX27 is also desired by quite a few, it seems.
There are multiple reasons, I think:
- analog got popular again because bands started using it again when the prices dropped (due to digital tech, of course)
- classic synths are vulnerable, making them decent investement objects, thus pushing the price, and making them more coveted than they deserve
- that left only cheap digital synths for players bands without money, much like the 303, 808 and 909 back in the day (speaking of synths that changed music...)
- which makes them desirable for the trend-followers, like analog 10 years ago.
- the DX series fits better in modern music than something like the early Roland romplers with their super-cheesy sound.
How do you get good bells and brass or as punchy bass sounds from subtractive-only synthesis?
"According to Dave Smith, founder of the synthesizer company Sequential, 'The synthesizer market was tiny in the late 70s. No one was selling 50,000 of these things. It wasn't until the Yamaha DX7 came out that a company shipped 100,000-plus synths'"
> How do you get good bells and brass or as punchy bass sounds from subtractive-only synthesis?
Quick answer: modulation (primarily oscillator modulation but also filter and amplitude modulation.)
Analog brass is great already, but for metallic (or sometimes woody) sounds oscillator sync, cross modulation and/or analog FM, and ring modulation are your friends.
You can also get some pretty jarring sounds out of pulse width modulation, some tinkly bells out of sine and triangle waves, and "punchy" basses out of square and sawtooth waves. I hear a lot of pretty raw sawtooth-derived basslines and leads. Stacked waves of different shapes can also be interesting.
It also depends on your oscillators. Many subtractive synths will feature analog filters attached to flexible oscillators that can generate waves other than classic waveforms.
Are there any reasons to use a full synth these days? I'm not a musician but I've been dabbling in digital audio on and off and I really like the sound quality of sampled instruments especially for Piano. I haven't used the original DX7 only a VST (Dexed) for it.
Physical synths are great because they have knobs and are great for real time tweaking along with playing. Also, some people enjoy some of the "special sauce" that analog synths have due to their imperfect nature.
...with that said: the DX7 is digital, and its UI/UX sucks. It has only buttons and menus, so no realtime control, and it's a bit unpleasant to use IMO. There used to be an external programmer unit with knobs but I never saw one in the flesh.
So, your VST is light-years better in terms of both UI/UX and sound due to better anti-aliasing filters and probably new features. Another good option if you enjoy the DX7 sound is the Native Instruments FM7.
If you want to experiment with a real analog synth may I suggest something in the subtractive synthesis family? Something Moog-ish is a great start! Behringer makes some very affordable ones!
I much prefer using the Dexed VST software based synth for recording over a DX7. The sound is hard to tell apart, the DX 7 doesn’t have a good surface for programming, has a crappy midi implementation, and doesn’t integrate into a DAW as well as a plugin. Since the DX7 is digital anyway, you also don’t loose much real or perceived “analog warmth”.
Disclosure/shameless self-brag: I wrote the original synthesizer engine that became Dexed, though the team has moved it forward in lots of important ways. I did careful reverse engineering of an actual DX7 II, including disassembling its ROM, so the fact that it matches well should not be surprising.
You deserve a lot of praise for your engine! And the reverse engineering leading to full patch compatibility is one of the real gems about Dexed. And therefore it becoming arguably the unofficial official editor and librarian software for the DX7.
I hope you got some satisfaction out of the fact that 2020 seemed to be a real renaissance year for Dexed. It’s been at or near the top of every list of free plugins I’ve seen or watched, so your work from a long time ago keeps bearing lots of musical fruit!
Computers still can’t handle the style of complex analog FM synthesis that people do with “eurorack” style modular synthesizers. You can approach it with software like https://vcvrack.com, but it will start to stutter out quickly even on a fast computer, and introduces artifacts if you are modulating with high frequencies.
Well, VCV rack is far from the definitive solution here. There are commercial alternatives like Reaktor which are much more powerful. Reaktor is powerful to a fault, you might say, but if you are running into limitations with VCV Rack then something like Reaktor is the obvious upgrade.
As an analogy, if VCV Rack is like a Unix shell that lets you pipe programs, then Reaktor is like a C compiler.
Or Bitwig where you can integrate your physical Eurorack modules or other voltage controlled analog synths and build any synth or effects unit you want from small building blocks with Grid.
FM (frequency modulating) synthesis in itself was rather groundbreaking. Typically when we're talking about creating sounds, we mainly had additive and subtractive synthesis where stacking oscillators were used to shape sounds. FM uses oscillators to manipulate other oscillator's waveforms, which opened up a whole lot of new possibilities.
The DX7 mainly was an affordable all-rounder that got loaded with a ton of already-good presets and a way of managing presets. Yamaha had already released the GS-1 three years prior, but obviously it didn't remain in the books of history quite the same.
The Sega Genesis soundchip, YM2612 is also a great showcase on how different FM synthesis can sound compared to comparable competing consoles.
If anyone is interested, there's a great open source soft synth called Dexed, which is compatible with DX7 soundbanks (and comes bundled with a lot of em). A free, fun way of getting a glimpse into FM synthesis and music production techniques of yore.
Great comment. This really gets to the core of why the DX7 and Yamaha's FM synthesis patent was important.
At the time the DX7 came out, sample-based synths were still too expensive for the average musician. Affordable analog synths had less polyphony and mediocre piano sounds, plus they were heavy! The DX7 was cheap and light and did an alright piano sound, which is just what musicians wanted.
But having a cheap and light alternative to sample-based synthesis wasn't just useful to musicians. Cut-down versions of the chips also went into Sega consoles, Neo Geo arcade games, AdLib sound cards for PC, and even the early Sound Blasters.
I think Yamaha's FM synthesis had a huge impact on the sorts of music a whole generation of gamers grew up with, as well as being ubiquitous in pop music through much of the 80s. This is what makes the DX7 important, in my opinion. It's more significant as part of the story of consumer electronics becoming affordable than just as a pop music phenomenon.
Indeed, the Genesis (aka Mega Drive) brought a sound very different from what was around at the time. As an example, here is the rendition of the Battletoads soundtrack for the NES [1] which you can compare to the Genesis version [2]. Both by legend David Wise [3] of later Donkey Kong Country fame.
For FM sounds I really enjoy the Neo Geo soundtracks of the 90s: Fatal Fury, The King of Fighters, Samurai Shodown.
They were a combination of FM and early sample chips, but all super tasteful (as far as 90s game soundtracks go!) and exploiting the maximum of the chips.
The specific thing that made the DX7 perfect for its time was not just the sounds, but the way in which it could be at home on stage or in the studio, making it both a players' and producers' product: MIDI was basically brand new, and while the dry sound that came out of the DX lacked body, outboard digital effects were available. Combine all of that and you had the defacto setup for "production music": a computer-based sequencer, a DX7 and some other MIDI synths and drum machines, a rack of effects units, a mixing board and a multitrack tape system. That's how it happened that music in TV commercials, soundtracks, etc. abruptly went from session recordings to synth-only during the 80's - you could bring it in under budget by leaving it all to a one-man band.
The DX7 just happened to be positioned to capitalize best on this trend, as well as being useful live gear, but the quick move towards sampled instruments afterwards indicates how interchangable the sounds themselves were.
I am a huge fan of FM synthesis popularized by the DX7, but the DX7 is only one of many highly influential synthesizers, and FM is only one of many influential synthesis approaches including modular, subtractive, additive, sampling, wavetable, hybrid, phase distortion and various forms of wave shaping, physical modeling, and others.
I would rank many other developments such as modular synthesis (e.g. Moog - think Switched on Bach etc. to modern Eurorack), subtractive analog (e.g. Sequential, Roland, Oberheim, etc.), hybrid and digital synths (e.g. Roland D-50, Korg M1), cheap Casio synths (from the VL-Tone to phase distortion), samplers (e.g. Fairlight, Emulator, etc.), analog (TR-808) and digital (Akai MPC) drum machines, not to mention monster systems like the Synclavier, supersaw synths like the JP-8000 and Access Virus (basically the sound of trance) as well as the rise of virtual analog synths, software instruments/plugins, and DAWs to be similarly groundbreaking and influential. In many cases these instruments were keys to the development of genres of popular and electronic music (e.g. hip hop, techno, trance, modern EDM, etc..)
For 1980s popular music (and radio recognizability for instruments of that era) the DX7 should probably share the spotlight with the Sequential Prophet 5, Roland D-50 and probably others.
IMO the DX7 sound was kind of a fad and a dead-end in terms of evolution and influence. Both the sound and the music it contributed to are relegated to nostalgia those days.
Its popularity in the synth world was quickly eclipsed by Roland-303s and Korg M1s after some mere 5 or 6 years of production. People were very keen to move to anything else and it sorta gave FM a bad rap for a while...
Also, Synths like Prophet and Oberheim were already dominating pop when the DX7 popped up, and they paved the way for the DX7. That's why I don't think the DX7 "changed music", like the article says. However, unlike the DX7, bands didn't stop using those synths when the "next thing" else came (even though they lost some market popularity), and they're still sought after today. People still love that Bernie Worrell funky-sync sound.
And Moog and ARP were already popular it in the preceding decades and were back on hits in the 90s, with Dr. Dre using a Moog in N.W.A., in his solo and in Snoopy Dogg's albums. Trent Reznor used a MiniMoog very prominently in Closer, but treated DX7s as disposable: they were just live MIDI controllers that were meant to be destroyed at the end of every concert.
Maybe there will be a DX7 revival but I'm not really holding my breath. Vaporwave was sort of, but in an ironic way, and using samples instead of the synth itself.
Korg's new OpSix is a very successful reinvention of six-op FM and a very nice-sounding synth. It's really quite impressive and also much easier to program.
The real issue is that the synth universe has contracted around a relatively small number of "classic" synth sounds. You have the Moog bass, the supersaw pad, various dreamy pads, various EDM plucks. the TB303 squelch, Oberheim brass, various dubstep pseudo-vocal woobs and buzzes, various clockwork-like sequences, and so on. There are maybe a few hundred of these sounds, and to music consumers they all sound like "synth."
Even with vintage analog, the space of potential sounds is much, much bigger. But the number of people who are real sound design virtuosos - as opposed to patching up some kind of raspy randomness on Eurorack - is tiny.
It's so much easier to treat sounds as presets or as imitations of the "classics" - which are often imitations of imitations - instead of approaching sound design as an imaginative exercise in mood and association.
So that's why some analog synths have legendary status. The promise is a legendary sound without having to do much work. And that's a very boring reason to play with synthesizers.
> Maybe there will be a DX7 revival but I'm not really holding my breath.
That reminds me of one of the very unique controllers for the DX7 - the breath control apparatus, that ended up immortalized as Midi Control Change 2.
It was intended to make horn sounds more realistic and organic. It never ended up being widely used. I still have one for my DX7, but also never got to like it.
It is true that the DX7 piano (among other presets) was on tons of songs, but so was/is the Korg M1 piano sound which became the "dance/house" piano of the 1990s. Its punchiness (basically compression, fast/percussive attack, quick dropoff, and tinny aspect) of the sound worked perfectly, cutting through mixes and also working as a solo instrument, providing strong melodic/harmonic/rhythmic support without sounding overly harsh.
They're clichés/classics, now, but imitations (and samples) of both still abound.
M1 beats both DX7 and D-50 in units sold. We are living through the death and simultaneous revival of synthesizers, there probably won't be any characteristic bestsellers anymore. Last I checked MicroKorg was bestselling (in nr of units) current synth still in production but it can't leave the same mark on the current era of music like DX7 presets did.
The Microkorg is pretty popular with indie bands, bedroom producers and was big in the mid-2000s indie-electro fad. But I agree that it didn't leave a mark as big as DX7 or M1! :(
I think the biggest synth from the current era will be the eurorack. Yes, it’s really a form factor and not a synth but it’s taken off in the past few years in a really startling way.
Maybe in influence... it helped kickstart the modular revival and even made other form factors popular again.
But in number of absolute units in operation, I don't know... Unless we compare number of modules sold vs number of Microkorgs. Modulars are expensive!
I think the difference is that units like the microKORG will come and go, but new units will often be in Eurorack form or be somehow compatible.
Eurorack can be expensive, but Behringer came out with a line that includes the Model D, Neutron, Pro-1, K-2, Wasp, and CAT—they’re all cheap, they’re all complete synths, and they’re also all Eurorack modules that can be plugged into a larger system.
Moog is also selling synthesizer modules that are actually Eurorack form, but upscale from Behringer.
I don’t have a modular synth, but it’s getting harder to avoid Eurorack.
So often eurorack synth building ends up in addiction like gear acquisition syndrome that it's almost like gambling. The only reasonably priced building is via DIY kits, but it still end up expensive and even more so time consuming, so it suits those who like soldering more than making music. I'm excited for a few digital eurorack modules, like Erica Synths Black Wavetable VCO, but no one could argue that it's affordable for a hobbyist.
Was the Korg M1 affordable for a hobbyist? It cost $2,166 at launch in 1988, or about $4,800 adjusted for inflation in 2020. You can get into eurorack for under a grand easily these days.
Considering that you might easily spend more money if your hobby is playing the violin or piano, or taking photographs, it doesn’t sound outrageous to me.
The DX7 is indeed super important. The E. Piano preset is in like all the 80s cheesy ballads ever... but not only those. It was also used in Jazz (fusion) quite a bit. Hell, Chick Corea was a fan of the Synth (listen Electric City), also George Duke.
Even the big brands these days have sampled the DX E. piano, because if you're a live performer it's quite likely that you'll need it if you're playing anything from the 80s in your repertoire (https://www.nordkeyboards.com/sound-libraries/nord-sample-li...).
The DX 7 E.Piano is not a great "E.Piano Sound", but it has a life of its own... :)
Source: Been playing Piano for 27 years and started on Synths ~22 yrs ago... first synth was an FM Korg X5D :)
It's by no means a perfect synth, not anywhere close - but for certain sounds and styles, it really excels. Pain in the @ss to program at first (and later for that matter...), but for me, the bass and electric piano sounds are just wonderful, at least if you're doing retro stuff, or 80's cover tunes.
The DX7 is also the reason people flooded the market with all their classic analog synthesizer. These days, while a DX7 is about $800 Australian, an OG Jupiter 8 will set you back $30K AUD
It's 800 now? I remember seeing them in the early 2000s for about 200 USD in used music stores and pawn shops, and even then people thought that was expensive since everyone were starting to hype analog stuff and had some disdain for them!
I was too young at the time but I remember older people saying the same about Les Pauls, Jazzmasters and vintage guitar pedals in the late 80s!
It was truly a weird time in terms of music and music equipment! Everything from the 50s/60s/70s went out of style, but returned in full force in the 90s, while the 80s stuff started getting rejected. Crazy!
Korg recently released fm synth (Opsix) looks cool but I wonder where innovation in synthesis is nowdays? Interesting products like ASM hydrasynth have fantastic sound design possibilities but it still could be somewhat done in a DAW. The semimodular stuff can offer things for experimentation, I wish there were more digital semimodular affordable synths like Microfreak that would offer versatility and invite to experimentation.
For me, the key aspect of the ASM Hydrasynth is polyphonic aftertouch/MPE support. Polyphonic aftertouch sadly died (for the most part) in the 1990s, but MPE is becoming more popular and I expect to see innovation in terms of MPE controllers and synths, with associated improvements in expressive performance capabilities.
Physical modeling dates back decades but still hasn't really hit the mainstream. I expect to see it in more keyboard synthesizers.
There are a lot of interesting apps and plugins that feature things like physical modeling, granular synthesis, various kinds of waveshaping and wave folding, etc..
There has been a huge modular synthesis revival with Eurorack and digital modular, as well as a commensurate explosion in available modules that go well beyond traditional modulars.
One major innovation in the past few years has been the rise of FPGAs and programmable oscillators such as those on the Korg Prologue; DSP synths have existed for a while, but it's remarkable to have FPGA hardware oscillators and effects that you can modify by downloading new bitfiles. Companies like Sinevibes have managed to add a variety of new oscillators (e.g. FM, resonator, waveshaping and effects (e.g. granular reverb, random repeater) to the Prologue.
New synthesis techniques don’t really pop out of the woodwork. As far as I can tell, what we’re seeing is old techniques repackaged with new user interfaces. There’s a ton of room for innovation in user interfaces.
If anyone is interested in playing around with FM (or PM), have a look at the Elektron Digitone.
It's "opinionated"; something like Ruby on Rails for FM with some guardrails to keep you in the sweet spot of sounds mostly. FM can become quite metallic / noisy quickly otherwise.
Additionally you get an interesting sequencer and audio over usb in a custom format and it doesn't take up too much space. You can build small tracks completely on its own with it.
There are also really good DX7 software emulations on the market but i suggest something more beginner friendly; even back in the 80s the DX7 was a pain to program.
Somehow affiliated, since the bassplayer and main songwriter is a friend of mine.
They might have some blue (1st press) and orange (2nd press) vinyls left to sell. If you want to get one and don't want to feed the scalpers on discogs, send me a mail.
The DX7 was the first of this kind of digital musical instruments. Every keyboarder at that time had to have one. They were pretty expensive, so Yamaha came out with some cheaper models with 4 oscillators instead of 6. The sound was also very good and the E-Rhodes is still a classic. But soon after that Roland came out with the D50 and that changed everything again, because now you could mix samples and digital oscillators. Yamahas answer to that was the SY77. A monster synth that nobody could program any more.
Everyone arguing that the DX7 is NOT the most important commercial synth (for whatever reason) are ignoring one metric that every other synth maker, alive or dead, envies about it: its sales.
I’ve always wanted a DX7, and even though I already have Dexed and other emulations, I got myself a Reface DX - which is a little marvel on its own, and much handier to have around: https://taoofmac.com/space/blog/2020/08/08/1430
I lived through the DX7s arrival in to the recording studio. It sounded harsh, thin, very un-musical, vastly overpriced, and was dated then, and it still does. Never sounded 'cool'. Recent software recreations flatter its legacy, which is a good thing.
It could be argued that the DX7 had a significant negative musical contribution. Oodles of sounds at the expense of musical expression. The musician became alienated from the process of making the sound. The keyboard player's job moved from playing the piano or organ to coming up with all the accompaniment parts that aren't guitars.
And the DX7 was way too difficult to program. Sort of like trying to solve a Rubik's Cube; you can be one twist away and not know it. And since whole point of synthesis was for the musician to explore and tweak their sound, the DX7 was sort of an anti-synth.
That said...
Maybe it was an accidental choice of words in the article, but I would also say that the DX7 was, indeed, one of the most important advances in terms of musical engineering.
Given 1983 technology, it was very difficult to implement digital audio filters, which require millions of multiplication/accumulation operations a second. The microprocessors of the day were not up to the task. TRW offered a 16x16 bit multiplier chip, but it cost around $300 for the chip alone (!!!) and required significant support circuitry.
FM synthesis, as such, was not new. The Buchla synthesizer featured it in the 60's. John Chowning refined the concept, moved from frequency to phase modulation, and brought FM into the digital realm.
Then some smart folks realized that FM synthesis could be implemented entirely in add and ROM lookup operations, which is downright easy in 1983 technology. Then they refined FM some more so it could produce a wide timbral range from the single engine.
That's the impressive part of the DX7.