Yamaha Synth Space History | DX1 | Dom Sigalas 

That was the main reason I bought my Hydrasynth

Why I have an Ensoniq VFX in my collection.

Couldn’t agree more!

Yes, I really love my Ensoniqs for their aftertouch.

Here, get my multi-touch-sensitive upvote!

GX-1?

Interesting,ours look different. Which serial# is this unit?

Also, check the rear connections. The MIDI ports are XLR jacks and moved out from underneath the pedal jack ports!

Must be a early version /prototype. Or somebody used it for touring. Replacing midi5pin with xlr was a common mod for stage in the 80s

@@1969mre Definitely a prototype from what I understand.

No, the kink of FM synths.

@@generalgrafx I though the kink of FM would be the Korg Opsix. That is, if I am following the definition of kink correctly: "Kink: a sharp twist or curve in something that is otherwise straight." (Thus Korg's Altered FM).

I don’t agree Yamaha is the best synth company of all times. Yamaha certainly made great synths and I like Yamaha. But Roland made more synths that wrote history of music than anyone else. Many new music genres and sub genres were made with Roland synths. And what is particularly interesting is that many legendary albums and new music genres were made not only with Roland flagship synths, but with Roland cheap synths as well. Many companies made synths that effected music on one or the another way, but no one made so many synths that influenced modern music as Roland did. :))

​@@roggyo You are joking now, right?😄 GX-1, CS-80, DX7 (and the whole DX series), SY77/99, VL1, VL7, VP1, Motif/MO series and Montage/MODX series are not only the most famous/best sellers/industry standards synths of all time, most of them are also revolutionary and ahead of their time. Yamaha with these synths changed the music history and synth industry in general, this is a fact. Roland released many great synths, no doubt, but you can't call any of them "revolutionary ". You'll not find any DX7, VP1, FS1R, SY77, Montage in Roland's synth catalogue, there isn't any Roland synth even close to these landmark synths.

I have a YAMAHA MX88 and the MX49. Not quite as flexible as some of the other larger Yamaha synths, but it's still excellent for the money.

@@BlackBlofeld I’m not kidding! I could say just Roland Jupiter 8, Juno-60/106, SH-101, JX-8P and it would be enough. But what about D50 which is for Roland the same what is DX7 for Yamaha. What about JD-800? Plus TB-303, plus rhythm machines such as TR-606, TR-727 and legendary TR-808 and TR-909, without last two you can’t imagine any electronic music at all! Yamaha synth department is obviously sleeping! Roland has also wrong policy - we don’t chase ghosts of the past, because they don’t want to make reissues of their legendary synths, but at the same time they are living on account of old glory with digital copies of old synths and leaving the millions to Behringer. But Yamaha synth department is even worse! Many people wonder if Yamaha synth department still exists at all. Roland and Yamaha should learn from Korg. Look how many new synths released Korg just in last few years (about 10 synths) plus reissues of old Korg synths. What about Yamaha? It has only Montage/MODX and that’s it! I have MODX and I love it! But is it all what the biggest musical corporation in the world could do in last 15-20 years regarding the synths? Except MODX I have PSR-SX900, before I had old PSR series and Tyros and Motif, but those are not synths, they are romplers. For romplers I will always choose Yamaha, but regarding the synths there is nothing new to choose from Yamaha except Montage/MODX. Besides that I’m using Yamaha monitors, Cubase is my main DAW etc. So I love Yamaha, but they could do much more regarding the hardware synths in last 2 decades. :))

@@roggyo «Roland Jupiter 8, Juno-60/106, SH-101, JX-8P and it would be enough...what about D50 which is for Roland the same what is DX7 for Yamaha...What about JD-800?...Yamaha synth department is obviously sleeping...Many people wonder if Yamaha synth department still exists at all...😵‍💫 Look how many new synths released Korg just in last few years (about 10 synths)...😟 I had old PSR series and Tyros and Motif, but those are not synths, they are romplers...🤣🤣🤣 » My little friend, you really have No Idea about synths in general, right?😂 Your last reply is the epitome of the word Ignorance. I wrote you the example of VP1 and you reply me back with the...Juno 106!😬 It's like comparing a Spitfire from '40s with a F-22 Raptor. Do you know which is the synth equivalent of a F-22? Not the Juno 106, believe me...😆

I reckon if the DX1 was opened up, the circuitry may not be similar to the DX7. The DX1 was a flagship product and most likely had more gourmet components, especially output circuitry. The DX7 was the prosumer model. DX9 budget (but actually has very similar circuitry to DX7 electricals, just the brain of the DX9 was crippled to only 4 operators , less options for level scaling, no aftertouch, no touch sensitivity. The DX5 was said to be 2 x DX7, but looking at the buttons I think it had more in common with the DX21 which was a 4 operator dual engine synth (crippled sometimes even more than the DX9) so the DX5 is a touch sensitive 6 operator version of the DX21. The TX81Z is a module of the 4 op DX11 which had more than sine waves and was multi-timbral.

Cost of house or car.

I think a Patch would rather be a combination of the two voices, which later be called elements of a voice?

@@torbenanschau6641 - Nope… throughout the 80s (and beyond actually) Yamaha used the word "voice" to mean EXACTLY what every other manufacturer meant by the the word "patch"… which originated from the early days of modular synthesizers when patch cables were used to connect the various modules and define the signal path. In the end the 'finished' sound creation that would be performed and/or recorded was referred to as a 'patch', and the term stuck and is used today. When everyone but Yamaha refers to a 'voice', they're referring to polyphony… as in if I'm directing 4 singers to sing as an ensemble, they can only produce 4 distinct notes (voices) simultaneously. Yamaha also bucked the rest of the industry in their reference to middle "C" (MIDI note # 60) by referring to it as "C3", where the rest of the industry referred to it as "C4"

@@Robert44444444 In fact every manufacturer had its own vocabulary and the term Patch was used on different levels. Korg used to say Programs and combinations, Roland had partials parts and patches but even that differed.

@@torbenanschau6641 - lol… yes I know all that. I own many synths from Korg, Yamaha, Roland, Oberheim, Sequential and some other odds & ends. I was a product specialist for several years with Roland US and before that I used to get work in the early 90s helping hobbyists who bought Roland synths as Roland began using the terms: tone, partial, patch, and performance somewhat differently thoughout successive generations of synth models… STILL none of that changes what I said. When I'm speaking brand specific, I use the terminology used by that manufacturer (Program, Combination for Korg for example)… but conversationally, to this day most people will refer to a 'patch' most of the time when not being model-specific… as in 'patch editor'. Also, in the era of the 1st few generations of synths to have real 'patch' memory, Yamaha was the outlier with the use of 'voice'… and it created confusion. It wouldn't be until '87 that Roland introduced 'partial' with the D-50, and late '88 when Korg introduced 'Program' & 'Combination' with the M1. More importantly to my point though is these other terms didn't conflict with an established term like 'VOICE" which already had a universally understood meaning when talking synths before Yamaha adopted the word to be used in place of 'patch'.

I was hoping for GX-1 😃

@@luucdentoom6955 Absolutely mate, the dream machine Electone GX-1.

I'm not sure if Yamaha have a GX-1 in their US collection. They have one in Japan, but it wasn't in working order sadly when Sonic State were there a few years back..

@@Wagoo they should call Benny Andersson then. 😅

@@luucdentoom6955 yeah - or more likely get Ulf Soderlund out to Japan for a while to give it some loving care, since he's the one that repaired the ABBA GX-1

Here you go! ru-vid.com/group/PLzGvKWz_lxDom6o0ZIEE6io0jM7ynflgR

I think the type of manufacturing for Analog synths meant that to have a 32 note polyphonic monster would have made Analog synths far too expensive to compete with digital during the 80s.

Can't dislike an FM synthesizer for a signature sound.

Being a guitarist maybe you could buy what the latest line6 helix is, Yamaha bought line6 years ago

Agree to disagree. Those are modules sitting in a case. This is a technological masterpiece, expressive performance machine like no other.

You can't compare a 1983 synth with a 2016 synth, be serious.🙄 Of course the Montage sounds better. It's also thousands times better in every aspect. So what? Go back to 1983 and compare the DX1 with any other digital or analog synth of this era, and you'll see how ahead of its time it was.

@@BlackBlofeld Don't feed the trolls ;)

Let's see how your montage fares against an 80s EMU emulator II ....

@@pihermoso11 montage blows everything out of the water, sound-wise. best current synth imo.

@@woodyforrest313 'Ferris bueller's day off', bet you haven't watched that movie, the emu emulator II is as expensive as a car, but it is worth its salt, because it's fat sound can't be replicated by even the current modern synths