FS1R a little at a time

Discussions about anything analog, digital, MIDI, synth technology, techniques, theories and more.

Postby carbon111 » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:06 am

23 wrote:I wouldn't dare tackle the FS from the front panel. However, when you get to the point of using a softsynth, there really is little difference (in regard to programming) from using a software editor.
At least in regard to the FS, I fear to think what an adequate UI for the thing would have looked like. The paramater set is simply so darn high.


Understood. Still, something like a Matrix12 UI or John Bowen's Solaris UI would have been nice ;)
Best Regards, James
--
My New album "Persephone": https://carbon111.bandcamp.com/album/persephone

Carbon111 Website: http://www.carbon111.com

Carbon111 Blog: http://carbon111.blogspot.com
User avatar
carbon111
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
 
Posts: 722
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 10:15 am
Location: Pacific Northwest
Band: Carbon111

Postby xpander » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:40 am

carbon111 wrote:
23 wrote:I wouldn't dare tackle the FS from the front panel. However, when you get to the point of using a softsynth, there really is little difference (in regard to programming) from using a software editor.
At least in regard to the FS, I fear to think what an adequate UI for the thing would have looked like. The paramater set is simply so darn high.


Understood. Still, something like a Matrix12 UI or John Bowen's Solaris UI would have been nice ;)


its pretty clear the FS1R that software is the way to edit it (a must for user formants), otherwise the UI is just for preset tweaking. i'm just glad Yamaha made the FS1R, its one of those rare birds.

i've always thought nearly every synth maker could learn from the layout of the Matrix-12, so smart...
User avatar
xpander
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:15 am
Location: los gatos, california
Gear: UltraProteus, Xpander, 200e, Minimoogs, Radias, Prophet VS, PolyEvolver, Arp 2600

Postby 23 » Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:47 am

carbon111 wrote:
23 wrote:I wouldn't dare tackle the FS from the front panel. However, when you get to the point of using a softsynth, there really is little difference (in regard to programming) from using a software editor.
At least in regard to the FS, I fear to think what an adequate UI for the thing would have looked like. The paramater set is simply so darn high.


Understood. Still, something like a Matrix12 UI or John Bowen's Solaris UI would have been nice ;)


I've never manually taken a paramater set count, but I've HEARD that it hits into the 2000+ range. Oddly, I could believe this, as when dealing with Fseqs, you can get up to 512 frames alone. Given the nature of how their development works, I don't see this as being anything but feasible in the software domain.
Leaving out the Fseqs, like I said, I haven't done a manual count (nor do I forsee myself doing such), but I can assure, it's still pretty darn high.
It was feasible to make a controller, all be it a complex one, for the DX7. That itself ended up being a pretty large controller. Realize that with the FM7, if everything were regulated down to mere sine waves, one would still need to tak on an additional 8 operator controls....that's stripping A TON of things out and moving things down to mere sine waves.

At this point, I'm still REALLY early on in FS1R full comprehension. In all honesty, when it comes to what is pretty much a hardwired synth (algorithm selection and a few other bits aside), I really don't know that I've ever encountered such a complex thing. Like I said, 7 to 8 months in, and I'm not on the surface of this thing yet, I'm just BARELY scratching it. Oddly, even with just barely scratching the surface, it's proving to be more capable than I thought.
Reason I say such is because I know at this point, the majority of it's features I don't have even close to a fair comprehension of, and yet with what I do understand (which is VERY little), there's a pretty wide sonic pallete I can access with purposeful and understood resolve.
User avatar
23
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:19 am
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
Gear: TB-303, MC-505, MC-09, V-Synth GT, FR-777, FR-XS, MFB: Synth II, EMU Proteus 2500/CS, FS1R, Supernova II, Fusion 6HD, ER-1 MKII
Band: 23, A23P, Piss Ant

Postby xpander » Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:03 am

23 wrote:
carbon111 wrote:
23 wrote:I wouldn't dare tackle the FS from the front panel ...


you know, you are describing the number one feature i look for in what i call my "bread and butter" synths... basically, something multitimbral that is so weird and complex that i can design and design sounds on it until i hit the grave without really feeling like i have exhausted it. my b&b's are:
UltraProteus, FS1R, Xpander.

...and MaxMSP, but i'm leery of software because it is always OS-dependent. :evil:
User avatar
xpander
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
 
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 7:15 am
Location: los gatos, california
Gear: UltraProteus, Xpander, 200e, Minimoogs, Radias, Prophet VS, PolyEvolver, Arp 2600

Postby Soundwave » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:35 am

carbon111 wrote:
Shame nobody ever made a cheaper version of the Jellinghaus knob-laden DX7 editor...


Someone did! :roll:

Image

Comes with an excellent DX7 preset! :wink:
User avatar
Soundwave
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:36 pm

Postby kk994 » Thu Jun 14, 2007 11:15 am

I aggree the UI's are no fun... somebody just getting into synthesis or looking for a synth for a bit of craic I think would be put off by most FM UI's.

Also I think the language of FM sounds very mathemathical and I think that turns people off. Algorhythm, Ratio, Operators, Modulator, Carrier, Index, Deviation, Bessel Function, Sidebands.

You might say subtractive synthesis is the same but it's not really Osc, Filter, Env thats about all you need in subtractive before you're up and running.
User avatar
kk994
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:06 pm
Location: Wicklow, Ireland

Postby pricklyrobot » Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:20 pm

It might be true for those who are mathematically/scientifically inclined that 'just a bit of effort and study will allow you to understand FM' (I'm generalizing and paraphrasing here obviously, not quoting anyone directly), but those of us who barely bumbled through trig and physics classes in high school might never understand it, no matter how hard we try (not to mention not having the time to try within the framework of something that's basically an after-work/weekend hobby). It was created by really smart people with PhD.'s, after all; though I suppose analog subtractive was too.:wink:

With subtractive synths you can discover the relationship between a given knob and how it changes a sound without understanding the physics of what's happening. Granted knowing the science might help you create more predictable sounds more quickly, but with time you could figure out all of the modulation possibilities and interactions on an analog synth through trial and error without ever fundamentally understanding what's going with the sound waves. I don't think the same thing could be said of FM.

And I think a lot of it comes down to whether your primary interest with synths lies in playing music or in sound design. Not to say you have to be one or the other, and most synth-heads are a combination of the two, but I think it's those who skew towards the latter who are more likely to want to put in the time it seems to take to really acquire the science knowledge necessary to program FM synths in a non-random, non-arbitrary manner.
Arturia MiniBrute -- bits o' Euro -- Sammich SID -- E-mu MP-7 -- Korg ER-1 -- Thingamagoop
User avatar
pricklyrobot
Synth Explorer
Synth Explorer
 
Posts: 1742
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:37 am
Location: Austin, TX

Postby Soundwave » Thu Jun 14, 2007 5:02 pm

pricklyrobot wrote:It might be true for those who are mathematically/scientifically inclined that 'just a bit of effort and study will allow you to understand FM' (I'm generalizing and paraphrasing here obviously, not quoting anyone directly), but those of us who barely bumbled through trig and physics classes in high school might never understand it, no matter how hard we try (not to mention not having the time to try within the framework of something that's basically an after-work/weekend hobby). It was created by really smart people with PhD.'s, after all; though I suppose analog subtractive was too.:wink:

With subtractive synths you can discover the relationship between a given knob and how it changes a sound without understanding the physics of what's happening. Granted knowing the science might help you create more predictable sounds more quickly, but with time you could figure out all of the modulation possibilities and interactions on an analog synth through trial and error without ever fundamentally understanding what's going with the sound waves. I don't think the same thing could be said of FM.

And I think a lot of it comes down to whether your primary interest with synths lies in playing music or in sound design. Not to say you have to be one or the other, and most synth-heads are a combination of the two, but I think it's those who skew towards the latter who are more likely to want to put in the time it seems to take to really acquire the science knowledge necessary to program FM synths in a non-random, non-arbitrary manner.


I think FM can seem daunting at first with the massive amount of parameters but I really don’t think you need a Phd level of intellect to get stuck in (unless I’m brainier than I think). FM is only as complex as you want to make it, it just requires a little more patience and parallel thinking than the usual subtractive analogue method of just reaching out and turning a knob for immediate effect.
If you were told to make a generic bass sound on a Moog Modular you wouldn’t have to use every parameter to forge a simple Minimoog style signal path which kinda applies with the FM but with FM you'll find its just same common group of 20 or so parameters multiplied for each operator.
Its like I said if you can get you’re head around the interaction between three operators when stacked then you’re almost there, the rest is in envelope shaping and if you can get you’re head around something like the JV engine then FM isn’t far off in complexity its just tricky with the usual DX style interface.
User avatar
Soundwave
Senior Member
Senior Member
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:36 pm

Previous

Return to General Synthesizers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: rsyobvgn and 14 guests