I hear you.

But this is so obvious that I almost didn't bother describing what kind of sound accentuates it.

Noisy = make the modulator loud enough that it's starting to get noisy ie above 85 "volume".

Noisy also = noise. Something FM is very good at. And I think this is one of those things that only those that are somewhat interested in FM at noisy levels are going to be able to take advantage of.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature 😉

[quotePost id=116940]
Is there some reason you don't want to post EXACTLY what you did so we can do the same exact thing?
[/quotePost]

Also, sorry, this isn't a bug report, I should have made that clear. It's just another observation of another value presented as zero that is not. I think this makes about a half dozen of these I've found.

Computer life is a bit of a distance from MODX, and I've no idea what values I was messing around with, just know it was a bit of a droney saw-ish type of sound.

With headphones, you'll hear this almost regardless of what kind of sound you make. Haven't checked, but you probably don't even need to use the Modulator, as my guess is the drive/gain is going straight to Carrier (8) in algo 68, from the "unused" "zeroed" Modulators, not through the Modulator that is doing something to the Carrier.

Probably only need to make sure it's loud enough that you can hear it change.

I sort of agree there's a difference, but not in timbre due to modulators. What I see is a difference in level due to number of carriers. The more carriers - the less level per carrier. This isn't necessarily as straight forward as "if you add all the carriers together - it's the same volume as having a single carrier in a different algorithm". I think when there's "lots" of carriers - there's a derating somewhat per carrier.

When I set the modulator to the normal sine at [EDIT/Correction] level 0 and carrier at Res2 with a skirt of 7 and resonance of 20 - I get a "nasty" sound. Ok - I get this same stack using both of the algorithms. With the same exact settings I see the algorithm with less carriers is louder and more carriers not as loud. I judge this by the meter on each Part.

I tried swapping parts. I tried changing the M:C numbering when I could make an equivalent to better match the operator numbers used. None of this mattered. Thankfully.

When I took the lower # of carrier algorithm and took the carrier and lowered the volume to .. lets call it 93 although I'm not at the keyboard and it may not be exactly that -- the level on the meters were the same and audibly they were the same loudness. Also, the two sounds were "identical" to my ear. I could bring up the tools - but I am willing to bet on level compensation on the output (carrier) stage as what's going on here.

I think there may be discussions of early DX7 emulation message boards where this may be discussed. I didn't dig any of this up. Maybe the source to an open source emulation will reveal something to back this up. I don't have this to back my assertion up - so I'll leave it to the reader to find if such references can be found.

In summary, I believe zero is zero across the board but 99 is not always 99 (or other non-zero carrier level values).

Note: I also tried changing the modulators to different types with different skirts/etc to see if that had any impact. It didn't. Somewhat backing the claim that modulators are not what the difference is here.

Now take algorithm 54. Operator 8 is a carrier with 5 modulators. Operator 1 is a carrier with no modulators. Both carriers will generate identical meter output levels and neither sounds any different if you use the sliders to "solo" only carrier 1 vs. carrier 8. You can also set the level of both to 99 and use the solo button to listen to only carrier 1 vs 8 - but I use sliders so modulators 3-7 are still active. Or you can use mute of only op 1 vs op 8.

I think by going through this you will soon move away from implicating modulators and move towards the carriers and some aspect of them.

Furthermore, I've speculated previously on the "why" this would be happening.

Bill, I don't think this is super important to replicate exactly, and it's so obvious (and as Jason points out, not even driven by the Modulators, it's not zero of a Modulator not being zero, it's 99 of a Carrier not being 99) that it's obvious without doing anything special.

This isn't troubleshooting, nor is it StackOverflow.

It's a heads up, I observed this, notification.

WHY?

Because I don't want someone that reads this to have the same experience that I had, which was trying to chase down what I'd done wrong in transferring one Part's content to another algorithm when they didn't audibly match, despite thinking I'd done a straight replication.

So when that day happens, and you're examining your two parts to find the difference, and thinking you're going mad as you can't find a difference, but can hear one, remember this post, and what Jason's brought as actual insight to my meandering commentary.

And chill out. You'll give yourself an injury being so serious about everything.

Jason, thank you.

The next time I start chasing gremlins, I'll remember that not only is zero not always zero, but that Max is not always Max!

You're a fountain of knowledge and insight.

[quotePost id=116954]

It would help, then, if you start such threads with 'just whining but did you ever notice that . . .'.

[/quotePost]

That'd be redundant 😉

Taking control/assign sources out of the picture ...

Zero is always the same zero - but non-zero values may be ever so slightly scaled on carriers. The output of modulators is easy to test because there are certain M:C ratios where different waveforms "pop out" at very specific levels of the modulator. It's the sort of thing where sometimes there's a needle-in-the-haystack singular volume where something different happens. When finding this - you can move around to different modulators and see if the modulator level no matter how many carriers there are (where the levels of the carriers are obviously different than algorithms with different counts of carriers) - you can see this same waveform pop out at the same modulator level value. I haven't done this myself so currently I assume the level trimming is only a carrier phenomenon. That assumption stands to be tested, though. That is, if you paint by numbers (and why wouldn't you - at times - I'm saying this is a good thing) to speed up constructing desired waveforms.

I may have read somewhere that there is a certain amount of compensation or attenuation applied in FM such that different algorithms, and different Spectrals put out the same relative (audible) volume.

I am not 100% certain if my recollections are FM related, or perhaps from some other "mixing" related document.

If you sum multiple inputs, you generally get a louder output than if there was just 1 Input.

Also, sounds with more harmonics (e.g. Saw) are generally louder, than a sound with a similar Level Fundamental and fewer/no harmonics (e.g. Triangle, Sine). Harmonics are Energy per Frequency Band.

The "more harmonics" philosophy follows the same laws/principles as "Summing/Mixing".

I say generally louder, because it is not always the case. Two "summed" identical frequencies will cancel each other out if they are 180° out of phase (phase cancellation). the amount of amplification or attenuation in a single frequency band depends on the phase (0°, 60°, 90° etc).

Since the FM Software cannot predict what you are going to "throw in the pot", my guess is there is some fixed "sensible" level of compensation applied per Algorithm. I presume the aim is to limit the Dynamic Range (due to ingredients) across the board.

To illustrate, compensation to avoid the situation where Algo X is always blowing out the speaker cones and Algo Y can never be heard.

In the world of Guitar, we run into this inconsistency of levels regularly, but we are mostly used to it, although it can be very irritating. The "ingredients" in this case can be anything and everything you put in the Signal Chain... Guitar->FX->Amp.

A Guitarist's secret weapon is a Compressor or Limiter which can help keep your levels fairly consistent regardless of what you have in the mix. I urge anyone to study and understand compressors before attempting to use them in a meaningful way 😉 .

EDIT... by the way...

As a guitarist, I have 2 Compressors in my "toolbox".

One is an Origin Effects Cali76CD, which is based on a UREI1176... there is a "Urei model" in the MODX FX.

The other is a BOSS CP1X. This is a multi-band compressor, and a Piece of Genius in my opinion. It makes for an excellent "Leveller" without squashing your sound. The "Genius" is the A.I. (BOSS proprietary "Multi Dimensional Processing"). It DOES monitor your "ingredients" and is constantly adjusting itself in real time to "optimise" the output. You will be pleased to hear, there is also a Multi-Band Compressor on the MODX... but you have to set all the controls yourself (no AI).

I have tried both my Compressors with my MODX, and they work a treat. The only problem is they are MONO... and I can't afford to buy another to make a Stereo pair.

Anyways... if you are interested in Compressors, look them up (Cali76 is premium $$... you been warned).

@Antony, I've poked around with EQ'ing and Compression and the various tools, at many different times over the decades.

But it's not for me. It's something that requires far more commitment to nuance than I'm able to do in timely ways. Like colour grading, I'll always go far too far, and make far to many variations, and never know when to go where, unless time caps the game.

Appreciate those that do it earnestly, and always been happy to pay them. Audio Engineers. They're professionals. Greatly respect them. Some are friends - they're wired different. Special, rigorous folks, with a amazing and different kind of retention of sound imagery, over time and tone, that's astonishing. And, like fine wine, they get better with age. Gems.

I wish, as do many Guitarists, that all Guitar related "peripherals" were just "plug'n'play".

Unfortunately, that isn't, nor likely ever will be the case.

At some point in my Guitar "career" I had to choose; live with it, or learn/find ways to compensate. Even choosing the latter, introduces its own issues. Extra expenditure is one, more complexity (more things to go wrong) is another.

I suspect these are the types of challenges facing all musicians, not just Guitarists. Music is Sound, and Sound is complex. Enter Producers and Studio Engineers. If we didn't need them, we wouldn't have them.

If you go looking hard into the MODX you will find inequity in a lot of places. I have noticed that the "record level" of AWM2 samples is rarely equal, and in some cases, the differential is so great, it makes it impractical to use the two samples together. Back to the drawing board.

Just saying, the MODX is equipped with Sudio Engineering type tools at every corner, should you choose to use them. I suspect there are cases where you will have to use them, or ditch and rethink your approach.

As an aside, there have been numerous "trends" and "debates" regards Guitar equipment. "Boutique", "True Bypass", "Wet/Dry/Wet", "Modelling vs Analogue" and so on. These are nearly always driven by a desire for "Sound Perfection". Pipe Dreams. They forget their "Heroes" were usually accompanied by an entourage of Studio Professionals, and the sound on the record was/is heavily processed. The guitar product market is often likened to the 1800's quack market for Snake Oil.

[quotePost id=117027]
As an aside, there have been numerous "trends" and "debates" regards Guitar equipment. "Boutique", "True Bypass", "Wet/Dry/Wet", "Modelling vs Analogue" and so on. These are nearly always driven by a desire for "Sound Perfection". Pipe Dreams. They forget their "Heroes" were usually accompanied by an entourage of Studio Professionals, and the sound on the record was/is heavily processed. The guitar product market is often likened to the 1800's quack market for Snake Oil.

[/quotePost]

Fully understand. Am an expert dilettante 😉

Have experienced this is in all sorts of fields. Including guitar pedals, back in the dark ages, that period between fears of global cooling and global warming.

Also love Gilmour's sound. And one of its possible step ups, Alan Parsons. Who seems to operate with a casual disregard for his prodigiousness.

Similarly, Robert Cray's sound was deceptively nuanced, not nearly as simply done as it appeared. In a word, exquisite. And Chris Rea I can wax lyrical about.

But the cake, at the buffet, for me, is Edge of Darkness, by Eric Clapton.

Steve Winwood was similarly tailoring his singing voice somewhere into this mix, almost (seemingly) in response to these "signature" sounds.

At the extremes, somewhere in the FM-X range of 4+ stacked operators, is probably an inherent quality that might be new and distinctive. But it's beyond me. I spend controlled amounts of time creating sounds, and raging against the limits. Out of love and lust, hope and faith, fun and merriment.

It's fascinating, to me, that the single Carrier algos have a bit more "juice". Will definitely pencil in some time to poke at these. But gotta diagram what happens in 4+ stacks before I'll be able to confidently experiment in ranges I might find agreeable to my tone deaf ears.