Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    US list is $1895.

    Check the June Aftertouch Magazine.
    
    nice. but expensive. a 6 operator TX81Z.....as predicted.
    
    ron
    

    $1895!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    No wonder they didn't publish the price... For that kind of clams
    I could get a half a dozen Fb01s and have 24 operators and 48 voices
    and 6 LFOs and and mis-tune them all and sound like Wendy Carlos
    and still have enough left to buy a Dove Bar.
    
    Len's gonna be very mad. He promised....
    
    Edd

    Opinion (ignore this): [
    That's ridiculous.  The single best feature of the DX7s is their
    16 voices.  Why cut it in half and charge through the nose for it???]
    
    Seriously:  Does anybody know what the package looks like?  Is it
    your basic rack mount?  TX816 card?
    
    Steph
    

    1-high rack mount.
    
    Edd

    er, ah, 2 high rack from the cover picture (Ed????)
    
    Its got 16 note polyphony. The problem is that for some
    reason they can only get 8 MULTITIMBRAL voices out of 
    it. Yes, your arithmetic is correct, that means that
    each multitimbral voice  can play 2 notes. I suppose with
    all the voices set the same, you have your basic 16 note
    DX-ish beast.
    
    Now at $995......
    
    Look, you have to get 2 tx81z's to make 16 voices. THats ~$1200
    list. So for ~$700 more list you get 6 operators.
    
    Hmmmmm, I cant even talk myself into it.
    

    2 rack spaces???
    
    Mine must have been run through a compressor...
    
    
    Edd

The only thing that six operators gives you over four is more FM programming
confusion, unless you just wanna use preset sounds.

If you just wanna use presets, buy a nice sampler and sample a DX7II (plus
any other damn thing you please).

Unless you are an expert programmer, go for the TX81Z.

I havn't liked Yamaha ever since I found out that my DX100 sustain pedal
works assbackwards such that you have to buy theirs.  Open = sustain, 
Closed = no sustain.

Todd.

    Does the DX100 use IT'S OWN sustain pedal???  (I know that Roland
    pedals work on my DX7).
    
    More opinion: [6 ops make programming many things MUCH easier, because
    you can get the equivalent of a 3 oscillator synth, with each having
    independant amp and filter characteristics.  That is, you can make the
    ``Sustain'' with one, the ``percussion'' with another and the
    ``thing-that-goes-radically-out-of-tune-when-you-wail-the-real-
    instrument'' with the third.  I admit that the hydraen 4-high stacks
    of ops are hard to understand, though, but two high stacks aren't that
    hard, and having three two high stacks is MUCH more flexible than
    having two.] 
   
    Steph

    The sustain pedal for my Mirage is 180 degrees outta phase with
    my DX...
    
    Edd

    Yep.  Just yesterday I was using a Roland pedal for the DX and vice
    versa (Yamaha's cheapie pedal is much better than roland's).
    
    Steph
    

    My Matrix-6 can reverse its "pedal sense" to accomodate either!
    
    	- Rick
    

My DX100 is 180 degrees out of phase with everything else.  Maybe yours
is wired backwards by mistake 8^)

I agree regarding your statement on 6 ops vs. 4 when configured in 3 stacks of
2 operators each.  In this case it is as easy to program as the 4 op.  
There are probably a few more 6 op algorithms that are easy to program,
but in general 6 op programming can be overwhelming.

Hell, 4 op programming can be overwhelming.  I've only programmed a few
sounds completely from scratch on the DX, and only one of which did I
obtain the sound I was looking for when I started.

Todd.

    But thats a function of FM synthesis in general, not how many
    operators. The sound generated by a change in parameters is
    NOT intuitive. 
    
    I A/B'd the Fb01 alongside a DX7 and there is just no comparison.
    You can add much more nuance with 6 ops and create a more complex
    (dont read: clangorous) sound.
    
    NOW, that's with only sine waves. The TX81z may just be a great
    compromise of 4 ops and other waves. I mean, sines only, you need
    2 ops to get a saw, pulse, square, etc...but tx81z apparently only
    needs 1 op for same. 
    
    Ron_who_has_some_$_but_is_overwhelmed_again
    

I never said that the 4 op synth sounded as good as the 6 op synth.  All
I implied is that it is less overwhelming to program.  Sure the 6 op synth
is gonna sound better than the 4 op synth when both are programmed by a 
professional DX programmer (he or she gets paid for it, do you?), but I
havn't got the time.  If you are impressed with the DX7 factory patches,
sample them.

I guess what I'm saying is that the more complex a synth is to program,
the less chance I'll have of getting myself motivated to program it.  This
is just my opinion.  Is it right?

Todd.

    
    Nope.
    
    
    
    ;{)   (with my moustache...)

Flattery will get you no where, Mr. Ross.

May the lord of the black and whites condemn you to a single Casio synth 
with a built-in bossa-nova rhythm section and 12 mini keys for the rest of 
your breathing career...

Todd.

    Aren't you being a bit tuff on him Todd?
    
    Edd

    
    Yeah! I cant help it if I knew this stuff since I was
    13 years old.
    
    Take it back. Or else I'll take my data and go home.
    
    

Don't take yer data and go home.  Leave it here when you go.

Actually, Umm, well, err, lessee.  I, ah, apologize Ron.
eek, that was tough.  [But it do feel mildly good...]

It was awful of me to wish mini-keys on you.  Please don't wish mini-drums on
me.  Not enough projection.  Unless they're just small electronic drum pads.
A piezo element covered in rubber on a stick?  How about a small cheese 
piezo with onions and peppers to go?  How 'bout a piezo mind?  [Stop, Todd.]

Must be Friday.

May all your sustain pedal bearing synths be consistant with the industry
standard...

Todd.

    
    One last question,  before I sign my life away.  Polytimbrality aside,
    everyone seems to be comapring this beast to the DX7 in that  it  has
    up to sixteen notes of polyphony or 16 voices.
    
    And while that is all well and good,  I am more  interested  in  how
    close it is to the TX81Z.  Does it have multiple waveforms  for  the
    operators?  I think the TX81Z has 10, the DX7 has 1.  Does  it  also
    handle performance data a la TX81Z ?  It is quite nice to be able to
    save a particular configuration of patches,  note  allocations,  and
    channel assignments.
    
    Zach

    I think that the TX802 does NOT have the alternate waveforms.
    
    	- Rick
    

RE: current tack

    Perhaps this is more important to Edd than to you?  Kicking the urge
    isn't all fun and giggles, y' know.  You should see the pencil gnawings
    cluttering his office ... 

RE: TX802

    Sorry - it's simply a multitimbral DX7-II.  Sine wave as base (ie, no
    alternate waveforms).  You want alternate waveforms?  Either get a
    TX81z, or wait for the new multi-wave 6 op synth to come out. Should
    only be around $5k, and be available in 2010 ...

    
    Oh yeah,  I guess I'll get two TX81Z's.
    
    More timbrality,  Additional wavforms,  same Polyphony for
    less money.
    
    Zach

    I didn't want to start a new note for this, but I read somewhere
    recently that Yamaha is coming/has come out with a "new" synth called
    the DXII, which is simply a TX81Z with a keyboard, presumably velocity-
    sensitive.
    
    Anybody got any info?
    
    Rodney M.
    

    
    
    Well I have to admit that I weakened and bought one of these things.
    I have been promising myself that I would get a DX7 one day and
    this is about the nearest I think I will get ( I used my sequencer
    budget). I actually think that for home studio use it is the ideal
    DX7. I own an FB01 and the TX machine has rendered that one
    unlistenable. It's a bit like the difference between a Cheap rack
    HIFI and the real thing. 
    
    			Paul.

    
    It seems to me that without the multiple waverforms, worth twice their
    weight in operators, that the TX802 is somewhat beat even with 16 note
    polyphony, 6 operators and performance parameters.
    
    I called SAM ASH last week. $347 for the TX81Z and $1300 for the TX802.
    And if I figure an equivalance at $1300 I put the TX81Z way ahead.
    
                            TX81Z    TX802
    
    polyphony in notes      29.97    16.00
    timbrality              29.97     8.00
    
    Zach

    Have you considered the Roland MT-32?
    
    It's a different sorta beast than the TX81Z (it's more like 
    a greatly souped up FB-01) but if you're not really into creating
    your own FM patches, it has a lot of advantages:
    
    	o 128 builtin sounds
    	o 32 voices (enough voices to go nuts with patch layering)
        o 9 sound polyphony
        o excellent builtin drum sounds)
        o with a PC/voice editor you can create your own LA synthesis
          sounds (it essentially has a builtin Roland D50 (?) which
          is one of the hottest new synth technologies)
    
    It's a bit more expensive than the TX ($530 would be a good price).
    But if you're just starting to build your own home studio I think
    the extra money easily justifies itself in bang-for-the-buck.

    	db

    
    	re (.32 re MT-32)  9 ain't enough.  FB01 has 8 and its nowhere
    near enough.  I want at least 16, Kurzie's new thingie has 24, I
    want 32, preferably 64 or 88.

    Re: TX81Z vs TX802.
    
    You pay (and in my opinion, quite justifiably) for the silence of
    the TX802.
    
    Further, with minor effort, you have literally thousands of public
    domain patches at your beck and call.
    
    Finally, it is arguable whether the extra ops are needed for timbral
    richness (in which case, non-sinusoidal waves will make up the
    difference) or for ``coarse-grained'' variance (i.e.  attack,
    sustain, velocity variance, etc.) in which case you can not cover
    for having less ops.
    
    Personally, I think the coarse-grained flexibility is worth much
    more than the more complicated timbres.  I am firmly convinced that
    this is the reason Yamaha put six ops into DX7*, even though it
    seems like it can be a real bear.
    
    I'm not knocking the TX81Z.  (It sounds quite good to me), I am
    just of the belief that with the TX802 you get what you pay for.
    
    
    Steph
    

    re: .33
    
    Reg, is 32 enough?  That's what the MT-32 has.  I think you
    misunderstood.
    
    The MT-32 can play 32 notes at once.  Each of those 32 notes can
    play any of 8 different 'sounds'.
    
    If your priorities are to be able to play as many notes simultaneously 
    as possible, you should certainly have a look at the MT-32.
    
                            TX81Z    TX802	MT-32
    
    polyphony in notes      29.97    16.00	32
    timbrality              29.97     8.00	8 + drum sounds
    
    Also, the division of voices to timbralities is dynamic with the
    MT-32.   No voice is dedicated to a particular timbre.  In one bar
    you can play 32 notes all with the same timbre, in the next bar
    you can play 32 notes distributed to any combination of 8 timbres
    without having to do anything.  Is that also true of these Yamaha
    units?
    
	db

    
    To put the MT-32 in the proper perspective, using db's price of $530,
    the correct tables showing "bangs-per-buck" and "bangs-per-unit".
    
    
    TABLE I. BANGS-PER-BUCK     TX81Z      TX802     MT-32
    -------------------------------------------------------
    polyphony in notes          29.97      16.00     78.46
    timbrality                  29.97       8.00      8.00 + drum sounds
    
    
    TABLE II. BANGS-PER-UNIT   TX81Z      TX802      MT-32
    -------------------------------------------------------
    polyphony in notes          8.00      16.00      32.00
    timbrality                  8.00       8.00       8.00
    price (approximate)         $350      $1300       $530
    
    To me it is more imnportant to have the notes  where  and  when  I 
    want them as opposed to having the instruments.  God created multi-
    track recording for a reason,  8 is enough.
    
    The entry cost is a bit higher,  but getting one TX81Z now at a lower
    cost will still not allow me to  reach  the  level  of  an  MT-32  by
    purchasing another 81Z several months down the road.
    
    I guess it is time to learn a bit more about LA synthesis.
    
    Zach.

                    
    Re-1,2,3 etc
    
    I am not sure what the issue is we are discussing here but I sense
    there is some confusion as to why any one would fork out Lotsa money
    for a TX802 when you could buy multiple cheaper units for the same
    price, and make a gain in polyphony. Well let me tell you I am extremely
    careful with the money I spend on my hobby and have never yet
    regretted a purchase. In fact the money spent on this unit was reserved
    for a sequencer but after much testing and speculation I couldn't
    find one which met my requirements. Next on my list had always been
    a quality synth a'la La50, DX7, Super-Jupiter etc. The reason:-- Quality.
    That is the quality of the sound and the lack of associated noise.
    Which is hard to measure in a Bang for Buck league table. But is
    a real annoyance with my other two "4 op" sysnths.  I guess
    as Steph says you pays your money and takes your choice. The only
    reason I bought the TX802 and not one of the others is The 8 seperate
    outs. Plus I got a good deal. 
    
    The flexibiliy this gives me in my particular working(playing?)
    evnironment was a significant plus. I would still like to buy a
    whooshy Roland one day!
    
    Just a note in terms of the compatibility of the system. Derek Kay
    and myself traded patches(He has a DX7) ,via SYSEX, last night for
    the whole evening. We had no problem DX7-TX802 and just a slight
    niggle going the other way in that one of the PEG parameters got
    a bit confused.                                          
    
                                  

    I suppose debate over 'bang for the *' is the only way to talk about
    thiese sorts of hit-tech musical devices. Unless you can take a
    unit home and live with it for a while, it's difficult if not
    impossible to assess whether it's sound is useful, or even musical,
    to your ears and in your setup. One good patch is certainly worth
    128 trains going down tunnels and the like, and the more I hear
    pro patches at work in compositions, the more I realise that you
    can't tell what a patch sounds like until you can try (or whatever
    might be the aural equivalent ov visualize) it within a tune. I
    mean, some of the prophet sounds that have been successfully deployed
    would make the milk in your tea curdle if heard in a shop, on their
    own, hacked out by a relatively inept salesperson.
    
    And it's always been difficult to assess on a 'quality of sound
    per buck' basis. That's why people pay thousands for crummy old
    violins, and I supoose why they used to pay thousands for pro-5s.
    
    Personally, right now I'd give my right arm for a minimoog. Well,
    a few hundred quid, anyway.
    
    Next month maybe.
    
    Richard.

    
    RE.-1 
    
    Just what I was tring to say myself but not as eloquently. In theory
    I still have the Tx802 out on loan, bit I know I will buy it.
    
    On a seperate, but related, subject, I noticed recently that in
    net.music.synth there were a number of encoded patch dumps for the 
    DX7. Can anyone tell me how to decode these ?
                                                  
    

    re: .36
    
    God also created virtual tracks for a reason.
    
    I found that the 8 notes my ESQ-1 gave me was not enough.  It's
    not just a question of what you can ultimately put on tape.  It's
    a question of the flexibility you have.
    
    If you have to record 8 notes at a time, you have to do all your
    experimentation on tape.  If you are sequencing stuff, I hope you
    have a sync-to-tape feature (as far as I know you don't) or you
    will only be able to sequence one track.  Get the MT-32 and you
    don't even need a 4-track.
    
    You either have to trust me or be confident that your needs 
    and methods are very different from mind when I tell you that while 
    this is workable it's just not very pragmatic.  You CAN do things 
    this way, but in my experience it makes the going
    much slower, and you end up making lots of compromises.
    
    Other readers should feel free to chime in with their own experience
    and say "You're wrong Dave" or "Dave knows what he's talking about".
    
    Let's also not forget that the MT-32 has a builtin drum set whose
    sounds rival and exceed many drum machines.  Subtract the price
    of a drum machine from the $530 and you may find that your own
    "bang for the buck" metric swings wildly in favor of the MT-32.
    
    As I aluded to before, if you get something with enough voices to
    obviate the need for multi-tracking you may not even NEED to get 
    a 4-track (only need it if you are going to be adding more than
    one non-sequenced track in real time).  So subtract the price of
    a 4 track (AND the price of the drum machine) from the $530 and
    the bang-for-the-buck becomes even more biased.
   
    If what you're trying to do is build a small home studio sequencer
    based setup (my guess based on what I know of you) with limited funds, 
    I would think the MT-32 is your best bet.
    
    By the way, you (or anyone) are welcome to come over to my place
    and try out the MT-32.
    
	db

	Hey, Dave...  Do ya think you can open a note for the MT-32 and give us
a formal review?  I'm especially interested in hearing about the drums.  I 
demo'd one of the first ones P.U. Wurlitzer's had and because they didn't know
enough about the thing, I never got to hear the drums.

	Dan

    re: .41
    
    I'll try but the HR-16 review constitutes my civic Commusic duties
    for the week.  Perhaps next week.
    
    Of course, I'm willing to demo it to anyone willing to come to
    my place in Hudson, NH (near Nashua).

    	db

    ...just seconding .41: Do please give us an MT-32 review.  I've yet to
    find out how many LFO's/voice the thing has.
                                                     
    
    	Eirikur
    

    So I'm not alone in beginning to hate the Fb01, eh ?
    
    Also I haven't been too interested in the newer affordable Yamaha
    rack units, as I'm tired of FM sounds..
    
    You can bet I'll try to find out more on the MT-32.. 32 notes
    simultaneously, dynamic voice assignment, builtin drumset.. wow.
    
    karl

    
    re .40
    
    db,  did i imply that i am still leaning toward anything other than
    an mt-32 in .36 ?
    
    each of the items in question comes with a polytimbrality of 8, but
    the mt-32 comes with 32 dynamically allocated  notes  of  polyphony.
    discounting drum sounds,  it still blows away the others especially
    when you consider the error i made in my chart for the  mt-32.  for
    the price of a tx802 you really get a polytimbrality of  19.62  mak-
    ing it even that much better.
    
    the only problem i do have is that i have to buy more  software  to
    create new sounds.
    
    Zach

    Hey, I know I'm not the only guy in here with an MT-32.  Any of
    you other MT-32 owners should feel free to beat me to the punch
    with a review.  In fact, I'm almost sure there are already some
    notes on it.
    
    BTW, 32 voices and dynamic voice assignment, builtin drumset and
    that ain't all!!!  It also has BUILTIN reverb.  Not great reverb,
    but useable reverb.  It has 8 reverb modes which pretty much sound
    like varying degrees of wetness/dryness.  The 'reverb mode' is
    universal - the mode you select applies to all 8 timbres/channels
    plus the drum channel, BUT you can vary the amount of reverb for
    each channel and the drum sounds individually.
    
    For those of you building home studios from scratch the reverb is
    yet another highly endearing feature of the MT-32.  Recording
    drums dry is the pits, and almost anything is gonna sound better
    with a little reverb on it.
    
    So, let's modify the bang/buck ratio again and recompute the
    cost/performance of the MT-32
    
    	Cost of MT-32 = $530 - cost of 4 track - cost of drum machine
    			     - cost of reverb - cost of tape sync
    
    That probably comes out to a negative cost of close to a grand.
    (Feel free to present this justification to the wives.)
    
    Now before anyone takes me to town on this; YES this method of
    calculation does not apply to most of us, but I believe it does
    apply to Zach unless he's bought some more stuff since I was last
    at his place.
    
    It's a pretty hot unit.  I didn't know it was a 'secret' in this
    conference.  I had lusted for one for what seems like a long time.
    Another Roland winner.
    
    Again, I'm willing to give demos.  I have yet to find ONE salesman
    who knew jacks__t about it.

    	db

    see note 989
    
    pcv 

    see note 989 AND note 891.
    
    These notes contain some reasons NOT to go for the MT-32 that are
    worth considering.  I don't get a commission even though I may sound
    like I'm hyping it.
    
    I like mine and am very happy with it.  It sounds good to my ears
    and it gives me a LOT a capability.
    
    	db

RE: MT-32

Numerous complaints about noise in this unit over the Usenet.  Listen
carefully before you buy...

Todd.

    Lets move this discussion into one of the other MT-32 notes?  The
    title for this note is TX-802. Or at least set a keyword to these
    replies.
    
    	- Rick

    
    	re .34	Thanks Dave, yes, I had misunderstood, still not quite
    sure what 9 sound polyphony in .32 means vs 32 note polyphony in
    .34.
    
    	Anyway, being *SO* new to keyboards/pianos and having played only
    acoustic guitar (kinda 6 note polyphonic limited), I had counted
    my fingers and thumbs when I bought the FB01 and said, "Eight notes
    at once, eh ?, sure should be plenty."  At this stage of my development
    it seems I double my knowledge/skills and therefore needs/want every
    month, hence the somewhat cynical comments about wanting 64 or 88
    note polyphony.  EVEN  "I"  can already hold a four note cord with
    one hand and arpeggiate a couple of octaves with the other (6 year
    old exercise # 7, I know), this takes 17 notes to go up and come
    back again for a single voice or the cord "goes away" if I don't
    play it again, i.e. introduce a synth technique.  Until I've
    developed some basic piano skills I want to avoid adding synth specific
    skills that are required due to lack of sufficient polyphony.  I'm
    also quite ignorant of what lies ahead, so it seems natural to want
    to go for "just a little more than I can use in the next couple
    of years", so I don't get trapped in the eternal upgrade game.

    	BTW, does the MT-32 have any overflow/outflow capability so
    they can be chained when the 32 note limit is reached ?  I seem
    to remember a reference to one/some of Ensonique's synths doing
    that.
    
    	Reg
    

    Reg, could you possibly elaborate on where that 17 note requirement
    comes from?  I haven't been able to figure out how you derived 
    this.
    
    len.
    

Well, there is the sustain pedal for one thing.

Watch out for layering.  If you use layering you lose from the polyphony
count in LA-type synthesizers.  (According to a review in the latest Keyboard)

        re .53	Err, lessee....  I hold the cord with the left hand, thats
    four; then I go 1,2,4,1,2,4,5,4,2,1,4,2,1 with my right hand, (keep it
    simple, stay in an easy key while I count this) thats another thirteen,
    and my right foot is down all the time, but thats not another note cos
    its a sustain pedal, not a pedal board.  The cord starts to go away at
    the second 2, its all gone by the third 2. There are a couple of piano
    sounds in the FB01 that I like together (layered), I think they're 4/6
    and 4/8, but I get close to zip out of it in dual mode, 4 notes per
    voice. 

    	QED ?
    
        	Reg
    
    
    

    Having lost the context of this discussion several days ago, I wondered
    just what "cord" was being held - the power cord (must have been
    heavy metal), sometimes called the line cord (for serial work?),
    or some lanyard attached to an across the room MIDI continuous
    controller (for "remote" bends?)...
    
    Aha, he means "chord", as in a line connecting the ends of an arc of
    a circle!
    
    Now all I have to do is figure out what the numbers mean.
    
    But then that last sentence talks about zip, could he have meant
    some zip cord, as in 18 gauge?   Maybe it's a typo and he means
    "rip chord", time to bail out...  
    
    Or maybe this is one of those mathematical games...
    
    ;^)
    
    len (hopelessly confused at this point).