There is so much you can do with FM synthesis, people really need this to be intuitive and flexible, and I think reface DX is the first step in that direction.
What Yamaha needs to do now, is to make an In depth programing video to get people startet with programing FM sounds. The demonstrators from Yamaha are not doing this right, and I find them confusing with some miss information, which I can tell since I know FM synthesis.

Thank you Yamaha for bringing back FM, I can't wait to get my hands on the reface DX.

Thank you for your thoughts. As you know, Yamaha and FM have the longest of histories and we are highly aware of the situation with the programming of sounds. It got the reputation (undeserved in my view) of being difficult to program. As you know it really is not. And the potential for sound design was hardly scratched.

This is based on the FM as was introduced back in the day, but there are some new wrinkles, so perhaps what you are thinking is misinformation is just explanations of what is NEW and DIFFERENT about this implementation of our old friend, FM synthesis.

I don't think FM is difficult either. the only problem being the UI of the old synths not being emidiate or hands on. It is understandable but it's very tedious. Switching pages and moving cursors to get to a parameter must be avoided because it takes too much time to edit. I think the reface UI is a step in the right direction, and it will give a chance to edit a sound quickly enough so that people will actually spend time learning and program it.

What I refer to as missinformation is; that editing levels, feedback, effects and changing algorithms seems to be the only ways to tweak the sound. That is the impression of the demonstrations. They don't show anything deeper then whats on the first page. I've already read the manual, and I know it's as deep as any other DX synth. But the demo's doesn't do it justice. They do program sounds from scratch on the CS model, but not on the DX model.

Another thing is the use of terms. I've seen a couple of videos that they refer to FM as additive synthesis, which is not correct. Organs are additive synthesizers, or in other words, layered/mixed (added) harmonics.
Overall I get the impression that what's being said, is something that have been rehearsed, and that it's being repeated over and over. Meaning no questions can be answered and people will get the impression that the DX model is just a preset machine with a few tweaking options. So an in depth video from a real sound engineer, would give the synth a totally different impression, and show what kind of beast it really is.

I can't stress enough how glad I am about FM being back on the market.

It never left the market. It's present in several hardware and software synthesizers, and has been for some time.

Allen wrote:

I can't stress enough how glad I am about FM being back on the market.

It never left the market. It's present in several hardware and software synthesizers, and has been for some time.

Oh my goodness you just had to go there...

I know many subtractive synths have fm capability. But that's just a small additional feature. Come on man you know what I mean!

I need to point of something about the front panel design though. The touch surface should have been moved to the top of the LCD Screen (touch screen), making room for four additional physical sliders . This would enable the possibility to operate 8 parameters at once. (four physical sliders to the left of the LCD and four on the "touch screen").

Anyways.
I just ordered the DX. Can't wait! 🙂

Can't wait for you to get one. So that you yourself will understand why the word "additive" can and does actually apply here. Since complex waves can be made by each operator, when they are all set as carriers "additive" is actually proper and possible. I was able to make a full bodied synth lead sound with just a single Operator alone. Using the algorithm where all carriers are available allows me to build a Voice using additive synthesis. Not sure which presentation you are referring to but clearly even old FM synths could do additive. And clearly the YC (organ) the "additive" father of all synthesizers was being discussed in the presentations.

And we hope you take your own advice and create that video on how easy it is to program FM. One approach to take would be to use information many user may already be familiar with... Building waveforms that produce all harmonics (sawtooth), building sounds from waveforms that produce just odd harmonics (pulse), etc... The math can get pretty heavy really quick when attempting to discuss how FM shapes harmonics without use of Low Pass or High Pass Filters... but as you know, it's do-able!

The CS being an analog synthesizer, is completely real time. The presenters create a sound "from scratch" because that's how an analog synth works. You have no choice. That's also how the YC organ and even CP vintage keys works, as well... The front panel is "live" at all times... Because the DX is complicated and deep, you are given 32 starting points by way of the 32 programs STORED in a User memory (just like the original programmable FM synth, the DX7). Imagine an FM Synth with all parameters at zero!!!! Certainly you are not suggesting that at an introduction event one should build an FM sound "from scratch". 🙂 And while programming FM has been made easier and much more accessible here, we don't fool ourselves into making believe everyone will take to it immediately, and start "from scratch". This is not our first FM synth 🙂 From a presenter's point of view, that's not even really important.

If the complexity of programming negatively affected sales of the original DX7, then that would be scary, indeed. Fact is, it was, at the time it came out, the most complex and difficult synth to program "from scratch"... Don't think that fact hurt sales so much that you'd notice! 🙂

Be sure to participate in the ultimate "User Group" which will be the SOUNDMONDO user sharing network... Where users from all over the globe can lose their fear of sound designing in a sound and music sharing community. That is when/where we can get deeper into programming. This should be fun and enlightening! See you in September! I can't wait either !!!

I know many subtractive synths have fm capability. But that's just a small additional feature. Come on man you know what I mean!

Uhhh ... no I wasn't referring to the kind of basic "One Operator FM" capability that almost every subtractive synth is capable of. (That was how you did bell patches on a MiniMoog ... shows how old the idea is) 😉

I think it's poor form to mention other brands on a Yamaha marketing site, but there are at least two products I can think of off-hand - one software and the other hardware - which do true FM synthesis (6-operators!) and are DX7 patch-file compatible.

I am anxious to get my hands on a reFace DX to check it out myself. As much as I am skeptical, the proof is "in the doing".

"Can't wait for you to get one. So that you yourself will understand why the word "additive" can and does actually apply here. Since complex waves can be made by each operator, when they are all set as carriers "additive" is actually proper and possible. I was able to make a full bodied synth lead sound with just a single Operator alone. Using the algorithm where all carriers are available allows me to build a Voice using additive synthesis. Not sure which presentation you are referring to but clearly even old FM synths could do additive. And clearly the YC (organ) the "additive" father of all synthesizers was being discussed in the presentations."

Read this article, then you will know what additive synthesis is:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jun00/articles/synthsec.htm
I hope you are familiar with Synth Secrets from the SoS magazine. FM synthesis has it's own article.
Saying a 4 operator FM synth is an additive synth, would be the same as saying a CS80 is an additive synthesizer, since you can layer more then one oscillator at a time. The algorithm you refer to is in theory additive synthesis. But explaining FM synthesis as being additive synthesis, is still wrong though.
YC is what would be the closest to additive synthesis, but I would rather call it Organ.

"And we hope you take your own advice and create that video on how easy it is to program FM. One approach to take would be to use information many user may already be familiar with... Building waveforms that produce all harmonics (sawtooth), building sounds from waveforms that produce just odd harmonics (pulse), etc... The math can get pretty heavy really quick when attempting to discuss how FM shapes harmonics without use of Low Pass or High Pass Filters... but as you know, it's do-able!"

I would, if my english was better, and I had a video camera. I know it can be heavy math, but getting people started still wouldn't hurt, and can be done without heavy math.

"If the complexity of programming negatively affected sales of the original DX7, then that would be scary, indeed. Fact is, it was, at the time it came out, the most complex and difficult synth to program "from scratch"... Don't think that fact hurt sales so much that you'd notice! :)"

I think things are different now. DX7 was a popular preset machine. Why would you wan't the reface DX to be the same thing? I think most people who are interessted in the reface dx, plan to program it. If it would be as unintuitive to program as the DX7 was, today, it would affect sales. Not because FM is hard. But because you have to repeatedly press buttons to find and edit a parameter. Most people want as much hands on control as possible. No wonder analog synths are popular. More hands-on control would also help the demonstrators to do some tweaking, not just feedback.

Allen wrote:

I know many subtractive synths have fm capability. But that's just a small additional feature. Come on man you know what I mean!

Uhhh ... no I wasn't referring to the kind of basic "One Operator FM" capability that almost every subtractive synth is capable of. (That was how you did bell patches on a MiniMoog ... shows how old the idea is) 😉

I think it's poor form to mention other brands on a Yamaha marketing site, but there are at least two products I can think of off-hand - one software and the other hardware - which do true FM synthesis (6-operators!) and are DX7 patch-file compatible.

I am anxious to get my hands on a reFace DX to check it out myself. As much as I am skeptical, the proof is "in the doing".

Sorry for my enthusiasm. 🙂

It depends on what you define as an FM synth. It was a typo of me not saying hardware FM synth market. That's how it is when communicating with with text, messages just becomes literall. No body language or voice pitch changes involved.

You have Korg Kronos's MOD-7 engine. Kronos is in theory an FM synth or VPM as Korg Calls it. In fact it's Phase modulation but anyways, same as Yamaha with some minor differences. But it's a workstation though, it's not a standalone synth. I wouldn't consider Kronos being an FM synth, but a workstation with an FM engine. I did have a Kronos actually, but the interface wasn't really synth like. It was alot of page browsing. Infact Kronos is a PC with a Keyboard attached to it, and software installed on it. reface DX or DX7 for that matter, is what I would call real FM synths.
To me there's a difference between FM capable keyboards and FM synths.
I hope I'm understood. 🙂