Korg Forums

thank's Mike for your detailed answers

Mike Conway wrote:

sebbytriton wrote:Mod-7 is able to produce the full SY99 sound ?

Definitely. MOD-7 actually has quite a few more options than the SY99. One of the main differences would be the SY's Segment Looping envelopes, but MOD-7 has retriggerable envelopes, which are very flexible since Lf0s, EGs and many other things can be triggers.

In the SY an FM program can input an AWM program, and that AWM program can be an FM clone (only), so you can have two identical FM programs with 4 filters (dual lowpass X 2). However, MOD-7 blows that away! PCM input has 4 cross-switch points (for 4 samples), compared to the SY's one. You can have two completely different FM programs; for instance, one can be a dance type of program, but you can then feed that program into the second oscillator and add more filters and operators for further tweaking. You have 12 independent operators and 4 filters. MOD-7 filters can be bypassed, per oscillator, while SY can not.

To feed one oscillator into another, follow the instructions in SirCombatWombat's POST. It really is significant.

The SY has one main LFO (plus a limited sub-lfo), for a single oscillator program, while MOD-7 has 4 (plus a common lfo). Now add MOD-7's Step Sequencer, plus Common Step Sequencer, and the fact that all LFOs are MIDI syncable, where the SY's are not.

With added poly, superior FX section, and extra Wave Shaping parameters, MOD-7 can do much more than the SY99.

The MOD-7 can replicate the SY99, but the two are laid out so differently that it would take a while to replicate each program. MOD-7 is an uber-synth!!

BTW, I recreated my own set of TX816 combis, when beta testing MOD-7. I recently tweaked them with FX.

It's worth mentioning again that the SY77/99 enjoyed the programming skills of countless programmers providing a huge number of exquisitely programmed sounds beyond most programs that currently available for MOD-7. I don't say this just to prove a point - the sophistication of their best sounds is something to behold.

I have to also confess to be a bit disappointed by lack of response to my sound design challenge for MOD-7. I totally realise how busy everyone is of course, but it means MOD-7 remains a quite barren synth engine with almost none of its potential exploited; so comparisons with the SY range are a bit pointless - as it stands the SY77 and SY99 overwhelm the usefulness of MOD-7 and will probably remain so permanently. It's irrelevant how programmable MOD-7 is if it remains unexploited; and I for one feel a bit frustrated by that.

I hope that Korg release MOD-7 as a software only synth engine; where perhaps it's potential can be realised - but with programs loadable into the OASYS MOD-7!

Finally, don't forget the free archive of 200,000 DX sounds loadable into MOD-7 at:

http://www.knect.ie/OASYS.html

cheers,
Kevin.

it is possible that SY77/99 owners are really largest than OASYS, it can explains why you have a small response to your sound design challenge for MOD-7

sebbytriton wrote:rbox, Mod-7 is able to produce the full SY99 sound ?

rbox wrote:Not so impressive. Why ever the same Sounds? E-piano, Slapbass, E-Piano......., neverending Story. Is the Mod-7 limited to reproduce outdated 80`s sounds?

I Ask , and sorry i´m not against you but i have downloaded the Demo of Ni`s FM8 and there are really cool Sounds and not these conserative Fm Bells and E-Pianos.

The Soundquality of Mod-7 is suberb but the character and type of the sounds are not Up to date, i dont understand that , 2 Timbres per program of Mod7 and you have 20 envelopes( with retrigger and modulateable stages), 3 Stepsequencers(with the common), 2 Morphfilter, 9 Lfos plus Vectorenvelope , Waveshaper with 100 Tables and the Results are E-piano`s and so....

Why was the SY99 sounds so cool and outstanding?

http://www.midnightsunent.com/SY99monolith.mp3

It is NOT possible to reproduce the SY-99 Sounds with the MOD-7, here are the reasons:

-SY99 envelopes has 7 segments Mod-7`s only 5.

-SY99 has 3 Feedbackloops and there are free routeable, Mod-7 has only
2 Feedbackloops and there are "fixed".

-the Filters of Mod-7(so the overall Oasys) sounds too clean with a small sweet spot in sound.

- you can use not only samples as a Modulator with the SY-99 , a whole AWM-Element with Filters and Envelopes is also possible as a modulator, you can also use samples as a carrier, samples on the mod-7 are ever
modulators.

Conclusion, the SY-99 sounds warmer with more character and has different features.

Ps: Dont believe the developners they want to sell their stuff , fact is Yamaha has the better FM and PM Algorithm.

The only reason MOD-7 is not sounding to every taste is the limited number of hours put into programming it. Reason for that is the small amount of OASYS owners compared to the mainstream synths. I for one am getting much out of the MOD-7, perhaps few others should try too. I'm sorry that I have had no time to participate on this fun challenge.

rbox is only being provocative and I am not responding to that.

I hope that Dan throws his weight in to this discussion (again) as he is the real authority on the subject.

Although I don't want to start a 'this V that' debate re MOD7 and SY99, rbox's comments are completely valid.

Hence sirCombatWombat while I also agree with some of your points, I think you are a little disingenuous to rbox's points which are completely sound.

In fact, I would go further. Though MOD7 is more programmable; it is very evident to me that the designers of MOD7 were not actually thinking in the same way whatsoever – or as well - as Yamaha were about the acoustic and dynamic qualities of FM and RCM synthesis. Yamaha put far more particular thought and finesse into THE required elements needing programming for acoustic like programs, into the algorithmic design and into RCM. Hence SY range features such the 7-segment envelopes – and the specific nature of their settings, the repeatability of envelope segments (vital to many programs), the number of offered programmable parameters (not too many but just enough) – the optimised nature of the parameters chosen for this type of synthesis all lead to a synthesizer that is incredibly effectively programmable. The resulting are sounds of awesome quality. I know I keep saying that - but it’s actually the case!

Instead, MOD7 was designed from a far more generic stand point and hence is far more difficult to program to provide the same acoustic-like quality and depth as the SY range. I can say this having spent 20 years on the SY77 and 99 and I'm finding it incredibly more difficult to program MOD7. Again – I’m not trying to just prove a point – but the SY range have been mildly ‘put down’ in several related threads and they are incorrect – it’s actually the other way round.

But as said by others - one could ultimately achieve awesome results from MOD7 - but it will never actually happen so that argument is essentially redundant. I'm sure you are using MOD7 to fine effect but you simply cannot compete with the hundreds of thousands of person hours that went into DX/SY77/99 programming that have released their awesome power; due in large part because the SY range in particular provide such optimised capability. I really wish it were the different. I really wish MOD7 was popular and programmed and I also wish Korg had picked up on the ‘art of SY’ when designing MOD7, but the missed that.

In summary, MOD7 will sadly remain forever more a largely untapped resource because of two reasons - 1) virtually nobody is programming for it and 2) because it is not as optimised or careful a design to harness the acoustic and dynamic capabilities as are the SY77 and 99 in particular. The best several hundred sounds for the SY99 are on a par with the best VL1 sounds for example, and IMO are unsurpassed as synthesised sounds. They are central to my compositional setup and will remain so for decades to come.

Kevin.

Perhaps I took rbox's message more harshly than it was meant. Sorry about that.

I don't own either one of the SY's and so can't compare them my self, what I was trying to say though was that the MOD-7 has not been used to full effect for the reasons mentioned.

rbox wrote:It is NOT possible to reproduce the SY-99 Sounds with the MOD-7, here are the reasons:

-SY99 envelopes has 7 segments Mod-7`s only 5.

You're absolutely correct that the SY series envelopes have more segments. Whether or not this is an advantage depends on what you use the segments for. The first SY segment is delay, which can be done using EG triggering on the MOD-7. Since the SY does not have programmable curvature, I'd guess that some segments (especially the second release segment) are often used to approximate other curve shapes.

Once you've eliminated the delay and 2nd release segments, you're back to 5 - just like the MOD-7.

rbox wrote:-SY99 has 3 Feedbackloops and there are free routeable, Mod-7 has only 2 Feedbackloops and there are "fixed".

Actually, the MOD-7 is fully patchable, with two inputs per oscillator, any and all of which can be used for feedback loops from anywhere and to anywhere else (12 total). Filters, waveshaping, ring modulation, and mixers can be included in the loops, of course.

Each VPM oscillator also has a dedicated internal feedback loop, routing the oscillator back into itself (and unlike the Yamaha synths, this can either use or bypass the amp modulation). That would be 18 feedback loops total, but who's counting.

rbox wrote:-the Filters of Mod-7(so the overall Oasys) sounds too clean with a small sweet spot in sound.

Well, I guess that's a matter of taste. I'm quite happy with the standard OASYS filters, with their resonance up to 20kHz (unlike many digital synths). I also like the very different, and somewhat dirtier, filters in the PolysixEX and MS-20EX. In general, the OASYS certainly is "clean," since it has fewer of the digital-only strangenesses that plague many other synths. I have to say that I find it doubtful that many would prefer the ancient SY digital filters, though I'll certainly take your word that you do personally.

rbox wrote:- you can use not only samples as a Modulator with the SY-99 , a whole AWM-Element with Filters and Envelopes is also possible as a modulator,

Of course, you can do this on the MOD-7 as well. The manual contains examples of doing so.

rbox wrote:you can also use samples as a carrier, samples on the mod-7 are ever modulators.

As with the MOD-7, the SY series allows samples only as modulators, not as carriers. Check the SY manuals if you like (I'd recommend the tutorial in the appendix of the SY99 manual, "Using RCM hybrid synthesis").

This makes sense, as FM modulation of complex waveforms (as samples generally are) often simply results in noise.

- Dan

Kevin Nolan wrote:rbox's comments are completely valid.

See my responses, above.

Kevin Nolan wrote:Hence SY range features such the 7-segment envelopes – and the specific nature of their settings, the repeatability of envelope segments (vital to many programs), the number of offered programmable parameters (not too many but just enough) – the optimised nature of the parameters chosen for this type of synthesis all lead to a synthesizer that is incredibly effectively programmable. The resulting are sounds of awesome quality.

We talked about this recently. The sounds you've kindly shared show that you haven't worked much with curvature, which is as discussed one of the important aspects of the envelopes. For example, instead of trying to approximate an exponential decay using two fixed-curvature segments on the SY, you can do a *real* exponential curve with a single segment on the MOD-7.

Of course, the MOD-7 EGs are also significantly more modulatable than those of the SY, with separate modulation of time and level for each stage of the EG contrasted with Yamaha's single 15-step (-7 to +7) control for keyboard-based scaling of the overall rates. Depending on what you're doing, I would imagine that the additional LFOs, the ability to trigger and re-trigger EGs from a mod source (which can be used for looping, in addition to other purposes), and the step sequencers can all be used for the same general purposes as the SY's envelope looping. If you have particular examples of things that you'd like to do but can't, please let me know.

Best regards,

- Dan

Edit - clarified re modulation

Hi Dan -

Yes - I agree broadly with your points in your last two replies. Actually - my posts on MOD-7 are a little inconsistent. I'm hailing it as wonderful in some posts and am slightly more hostile in others.

Such is the passion of us (all) - these things matter to us and bring out various reactions (in me at least!) depending on the context. My slight hostility / frustration comes from the fact that the SY series are so wonderful and wonderfully programmed - and I'd just love to see MOD-7 slightly more orientated to their programmes - and for it to be programmed more. I'm aware I haven't backed up the SY77/99 quality I speak of with many examples - there are three or four I posted on another thread - but if I had the time I'm convinced that the truly exquisite nature of SY AFM/RCM can be demonstrated.

On one point - though I need to look into it a bit more (and perhaps you are clearer on this point?) - but I think there is something to rbox's proposition that AWM samples can be carriers. I know the manual does not suggest this but something 'like this' can 'kind of' be achieved by what I believe is routing a sample into a carrier operator (as a modulator). Then (I think) on the SY if you make that carrier operator frequency constant (and I think low - say 10Hz for example), then it kind of acts as an AWM carrier - and where the AWM's frequency is inherited as normal across the keyboard from the AWM 'element'. For example, the French Horn sound example I posted elsewhere has a horrible 'organ' FM sound which convolves with a French Horn sample, where (again - I 'think') the French Horn seems to act act as a kind of carrier and inherits the convolution of the FM organ harmonics with the French Horn sample, providing for a stunningly dynamic horn sound. Probably, technically speaking, the sample is a modulator, but it is 'modulated' by other sine waveoperators and then 'slips though it's carrier operator' if you get my drift? So there is definitely something to rbox's point there. I could be wrong on this as its actually a few years since I last looked in to this - but I'll look for the actual explanation and post it. Perhaps the same is true on MOD7 of course?

But taking a step back and looking objectively, overall MOD-7 is an astounding addition to OASYS. It still amazes me that it can read hundreds of thousands of DX patches and it has such truly awesome depth which should never be understated.

And of course in arguing for more programmes I have to confess to not having purchased KARO's MOD7 sound sets (yet - I will buy them before too long) - and I'm sure they are great - but at least KARO are maintained 'top spot' in the thread list so hopefully this helps sales.

Actually KARO - reprogramming 128 exquisite SY77/SY99 sounds for MOD7 would be very worthwhile. I would be prepared to help in this. I actually went through 57,000 sounds on the SY99 (- took three years!!) and selected what I felt were the best 750 or so. If you ever decide to do an SY conversion package I'd be delighted to email you those sounds free gratis (you’ve read it here!!). Getting the programs on OASYS would be reward enough.

Cheers,
Kevin.

Kevin Nolan wrote: On one point - though I need to look into it a bit more (and perhaps you are clearer on this point?) - but I think there is something to rbox's proposition that AWM samples can be carriers. I know the manual does not suggest this but something 'like this' can 'kind of' be achieved by what I believe is routing a sample into a carrier operator (as a modulator). Then (I think) on the SY if you make that carrier operator frequency constant (and I think low - say 10Hz for example), then it kind of acts as an AWM carrier - and where the AWM's frequency is inherited as normal across the keyboard from the AWM 'element'.

<snip>

Probably, technically speaking, the sample is a modulator, but it is 'modulated' by other sine waveoperators and then 'slips though it's carrier operator' if you get my drift?

You're absolutely right about the audible results. However, the sample-playback oscillator is still a modulator, and not a carrier. Altering the relative frequencies doesn't change this.

For more information, see "Tip: Carrier Ratio near 0 produces chorusing" on page 356 of the Parameter Guide (latest PDF version E5).

Best regards,

Dan

Kevin. I'm with you that it would be amazing to get the MOD-7 in software form. If I could add it to my Receptor I'd be a happy man!

Jeff