Q: opinions on Yamaha TX-802 and TX-816 wanted
Rudy Kizer
hear opinions/horror stories/rave reviews of either synth. i'll be using
an editor librarian to program either of the units, so programming info is
also appreciated.
respond either by email or to this group.
thanks...
Rudy Kizer, Producer / Engineer
Word Life! Entertainment / Pelicore Visionz West Studios
PO Box 5751
Lafayette, IN 47904
email: word...@holli.com URL: http://www.holli.com/~wordlife
Bouvard Hosticka
and microscaling (each operator can have its relative volume
adjusted for each 3 note block). It also has "better"
digital sound resolution than the TX816. But it is only 16 note
poly (8 part multi-tibral by 2 note poly) so you are really comparing
apples and oranges. A TX 816 has 128 note poly (8 Multi by 16
notes poly) and can be used as a space heater in a cold studio.
THe sound quality difference is not noticable in my mixes (I
also use a Mirage and K-5 which are not noted for clean quite
sounds)
TX802's are cheap and plentiful, 816 are a bit harder to find.
--
Bouvard Hosticka
804 982 5440
b...@Virginia.edu
Rob Moreno
to have. The tx802's 12 bit D/A converter makes it sound much cleaner than the tx
816's 8 bit converter, plus its possible to edit the tx 802 from the front panel whereas
you cannot do so on the tx 816. Of course using a computer editor is much much better.
Both units are 8 part mult-timbral. The tx 816 is more powerful in this sense because of
its 16 note polyphony per part compared with two note polyphony on the tx 802, but the
parts on the tx 802 can be combined to obtain more polyphony, for example: four parts
with four note polyphony each, etc. Finally, the midi implementation is much better on the
tx 802. There are many other differences between the two units, e-mail me for for info.
-Rob Moreno
Jon Krocker
word...@POP.holli.com (Rudy Kizer) wrote:
>i would like to get some fm sounds into my midi setup and would like to
>hear opinions/horror stories/rave reviews of either synth. i'll be using
>an editor librarian to program either of the units, so programming info is
>also appreciated.
I have a TX802 and IMHO I would consider it to be the best expression of
FM that Yamaha ever did. The TX81n is not as flexible as the 802 but still
great. The 802 can :-( be edited from the front panel but the TX81n is
editable only thru sysex. If I had to rate FM rack mounts I would rate as
follows TX802, TX81Z, TX8n, FB01. I have had all of them and still have 2
FB01 and I just bought another TX802. Get software to edit, its the only
way to go.
--
Jon Krocker
jkro...@magic.mb.ca - jkro...@mbnet.mb.ca
Thus the primary Clear Light is recognized and Liberation attained.
- Bardo Thodol -
Rob Moreno
Richard Whitehouse
I believe this is wrong. The TX802 has, a 16-bit DAC, like the DX7II series,
and the TX816 has the 14-bit DAC like the original DX7 series. Someone
please correct me if I'm wrong on the details. But no way were either of
these ever 12-bit, and neither were they ever 8-bit.
Chris Muir
<nava...@pilot.msu.edu> wrote:
> I have a TX802 and IMHO I would consider it to be the best expression of
> FM that Yamaha ever did.
The TX802 is good, but I think the "best FM" title would have to go to the
SY/TG77 or the SY99. If you ignore the sample section in these
instruments, they are wonderful FM synths. The "free algorithm"
capability, plus the extra flexibility in the feedback paths push this
series out in front. Sounds good, too ;->
Chris
--
___________________________________________________________
Chris Muir | "Are we having quotes yet?"
c...@well.com | http://www.well.com/user/cbm
Gerry Percy
exploring new sounds (via software editing!), and more importantly playing it零 wonderful FM
sounds.
I would have no reservations including this synth in the top 10 list as your FM source.......
As an aside, I am very fortunate to be the new owner of the Waldorf WAVE synth....... Takes
your breath away. I haven靖 been this excited about a synth since my first Prophet 5 back in the
late 70零. I still have one of the last production models and it零 still wonderful, but this WAVE is
amazing!!!!!!!
In Music,
Gerry
Ron Hillman
--
RON HILLMAN
r...@smartlink.net
I have a TX216 and the only way that I have to work with these modules is
with an old 640K AT Computer (this program will not run on my 386 dx40).
I have a Bacchus librarian which was great when the two floppys that had
thousands of sounds worked. Now they have gone bad and I am stuck with
the sounds in the unit. I could reload them if the Tx216 ever dumped on
me. I am seeking a editor/librarian, and sounds for the dx7 format.
Ron
Mark Schoenhals
FM synths, and I know what I heard.
As far as sound quality goes playing the same patches:
The TX816/TF-1 tone modules sound the best.
The TX802 is alright.
The TX7 sounds pretty bad.
Of these, I felt only the TX816 (or TX216 for me this time around) was worth
keeping. I thought the TX802 multitimbral mode with multiple outputs was
too burdensome and the machine didn't sound especially good anyway. With the
TX816, each module is a separate synth and there are no "multi modes" or
anything complicated like that. Each stores its own set of 32 patches (keep
bass patches in one, percussive hits in another, for example). You can't beat
the TX216/TX816/TF-1.
I had to sell my TG-77 to pay my rent before I had time to get into FM
programming on it, so I can't testify to its sound quality in direct comparison.
I'm told the TQ5 sounds better than the TX81Z. It's harder to find, but it's
usually cheaper.
FM is definitely a top-ten.
Michael Erwin
: I'm told the TQ5 sounds better than the TX81Z. It's harder to find, but it's
: usually cheaper.
Just a quick aside to Mark's post:
The TQ5's synth engine is virtually identical to the 81z's with the exception
that the TQ5 can handle a few more operator/carrier frequency ratios than the
81z. But you'd normally never know this, because the TQ can't be edited from
the front panel! If someone told you that the TQ5 sounded better than the
TX81z, it's probably because it has a rude reverb/DDL built in, which
does improve the dry sound somewhat. I'd take a TX81z any day over a TQ5;
it's in a nice 1 rack space chassis, is fully editible from the front panel,
and that rorating voice assignment mode in the performance section rules!
Now, back to the raging debate over 816 vs. 802!
Regards,
Michael
vincent_scott
I own/operate a TX816 and love it {if such a thing is possible
with a material piece of electronic equipment!} FM synthesis is not
currently "in vogue" these days {a few years ago, neither was
analog...} but i could care less ! ! Who gives a !@##@! "what's in &
what isn't??! "12-bit / 16 bit" blah-blah.. - it's the character of
sound that truly matters & how it inspires you! The top-most important
thing is that it grooves YOU to create music/noise/sound collages
whatever strikes your fancy + makes life in a musical realm more
enjoyable for you {& possibly listeners...} in the process!
Even if it is a 4-bit sample {uuhhh} of pink noise filtered through a
sample&hold modulator sent out to a Boss {tm} BF-2 flanger..
If it moves you, ...go for it!
( well, paying $$ for the gear is another story.. )
-=off of soapbox, --back on topic...=-
The cool thang about the '816 is that it is essentially 8 DX7
brains {whoa!} in a rack, so in the end, you have 8 of 'em in all
their FM glory housed within a four-mount rack space. You can pan
individual modules different directions from yo' mixer & achieve
wonderful layered timbres that are difficult to arrive at otherwise...
Don't let the "FM synthesis too hard" choir fool you. The DX is by no
means as "easy" {intuitive} to program as a real-live analog
synthesizer with a boatload of real-time sliders/knobs in yur face,
but don't let that stop you! Once the basic principles of
Frequency-Modulation {FM!} are understood, creating original sounds is
not at all difficult. If you desire to learn and grasp the basics, a
relatively uncharted sonic universe awaits. I was in a music store
recently and noticed that many of the preset PCMs on various
sample-playback boards were sampled FM sounds! <gasp!>
...'Oil well', as agent WD40 would say....
?
Generally, with "real" FM, you, the synthesist, have greater
control over velocity response and timbral change in relation to
playing technique {if yhats what you are seeking} If you already own
some sort of analog beast, a TX816 would be a nice addition to your
present setup + goes great in layers and works really well with-------
{this is beginning to sound like a Yamaha ad!} ok enough...
Really tho, FM family synthesis is like "way cool" & stuff and is
definitely worth your time in exploring. Be prepared, if you wish.
It MAY become the next ,uh, "fad"...
{hhmmm... actually, that'd be groovy since analog stuff will be
considered "junk" ---"passe" "un-usable" & things and that Minimoog
I've been seeking ever since i {regretfully} sold mine to pay rent
will pop up for a somewhat "down-on-this-planet" sort of
price...<sigh> {hi} i can keep the Gremlin! yea!
*whisper* {with gated reverb...}
[[[[[..want to buy a used AMC Gremlin with new tires? ]]]]] <gg>
Hope my ramblings here helped you somewhat, or a *least*
increased the confusion factor! ; -)
take care, best wishes wish your music & stuff
Vincent