OPS7 16 Engine Piano (from Yamaha TX816 factory presets)

@glenjdiamond

Out of curiosity, is there some reason you prefer OPS7 over the free Dexed which is bundled with Unify?

@getdunne During the 1st part of Covid I got a real DX21 quickly followed by a real DX9 and was amazed at how I preferred the older DX9 sound.  During the past I've had DX11 and TX802 so I know what the generations of DX sounds should be.   

I saw the OPS7 on youtube and the video by plogue really nailed the original mk1 DX7 sound.  I think the developer said that he became obsessed with getting every little detail correct.   The onboard FX aren't really that necessary as I think that everyone nowadays has enough FX, especially those of us with Unify!!!   It's nice that OPS7 has a second engine.  There are sets of DX5 and some DX1 sysex on the net so I get to play with them too!! (well, I don't have polyphonic aftertouch keyboard and OPS7 doesn't support that so maybe not DX1 !!!) 

So I purchased OPS7 and tried out my DX9 patches and they were identical (similar circuitry to the DX7) - the same patches in Dexed don't sound right.  The low end isn't buzzy/clippy enough in dexed and the unique DX aliasing nuances aren't there in dexed.   I also tried out some DX21 patches with dexed but, again, there were sonic differences, especially in the low end, that lost the DX character.

I suppose, for me, the OPS7 has the "DX" character I'm looking for.   Obviously dexed is great and comes close but fails to have "that" DX sound that was so famous in the 80s.   

I am hopeful that more software developers can closely emulate the synths of old and take notice of how Plogue went to the nth degree to get their software to sound so faithful to the original character.

From what I understand, Softube 84 is another one of those emulations that comes incredibly close (to the Juno 106) so I may look to get that soon, but I'm happy to wait for a while as although I "like" the Juno sound it doesn't really resonate with me like the DX synths did/do !!!.

@glenjdiamond Thanks for clarifying. David Viens of Plogue certainly did an amazing job of reverse-engineering Yamaha's chips.

Out of curiosity I've fired up my TX816 again and compared it with Dexed. Dexed is remarkable close with a lot of patches but with others not so. Didn't investigate this further for now, just an observation.

At the moment I'm in the process of recreating the original 32 TX816 presets for Unify using 8 Dexed's. This is surely one case that only Unify can handle conveniently with its preset system. If there's any interest I can upload it here.

This is a wonderful undertaking - especially if you are using Dexed. I have actually converted a number of TX-816 Patches into Unify format (before Unify even came out actually i was working on this). This might be something fun to see if we can pull together as a Christmas present to our community?  😀

Happy to do so! However, there are some implementation issues. When importing the original sysex bank into Dexed, Dexed is sometimes complaining about a corrupted bank. This is most likely that the original sysex is in TX7 format instead of DX7. When forcing it to load it accepts it, but information is lost.

The original patches were setup to listen to Modulation wheel, Breath controller and Foot controller messages. Modulation is not a problem of course, but a breath controller or a foot controller is not something everybody has, at least I don't have them. To be honest I never really missed it, but I'm wondering what other people think about this.

So far I can tell when comparing sounds A/B between the TX816 and the 8 layer Dexed version it's astonishing close.

@zimp,  I have dxconvert installed and working on my laptop.  If you upload the sysex (zipped up) I may be able to convert them. We all have dexed with unify so I will be able to see if there are any errors after they have been converted with "dxconvert".

You are right about the extra foot pedal etc...   I don't have a breath controller but I just used a another foot controller.  I have a midi device that I can plug foot controllers into (expression and switch pedals) and I had to use the app that came with the midi controller to map a CC.   Then the knobs in unify to MIDI learn those CC's.      I was using OPS7 (not dexed) so I had to add controller info using those CC's into OPS7 matrix.

There is most likely a more efficient way of using UNify to "link" to the EG BIAS control in dexed (and in my case OPS7) rather than using the matrix that comes with the VST software.

In Unify the first 3 macro knobs are just perfect for simulating modulation, breath controller and foot controller messages. So if you don't have a breath controller or foot controller the macro knobs are the way to go. In Dexed I already made the assignments to those controllers. I used the original Performance Notes that are available online. One thing that I can't find is the "glissando" function setting in Dexed, it's either not there or just left out?

I'm interested if dxconvert can spot errors with these files.

Yes - I think that some of your files may not have been formatted correctly.   I converted the TF2 file (which was giving me an error in dexed) and the converted TF2 file loaded fine in dexed.

I have got the original TF1-8 sysex already (all tested and working in dexed) - they are the files I used with OPS7.  I have zipped up those to share with you (someone may have already run them through dxconvert as they work perfectly).

Thank you so much!!  👍 

Nice patches glenjdiamond! Didn't knew about the panning guidelines for TX816, great info (found them on yamaha_tx816_performance_notes_rvgm.pdf, on internet). In your OPS-7 patches in Unify, the volumes varies according the layer. This is done by personal preferences or there's some level guidelines too? I'm asking cause I think that they all should be the same level don't? (at least to sound the same as in TX816)

Made a little demo track, everything Unify using Dexed's, I use 3 instances of the TX816 emulation. 

https://soundcloud.com/bronswerk/unify-tx816-01

Posted by: @glenjdiamond

So I purchased OPS7 and tried out my DX9 patches and they were identical (similar circuitry to the DX7) - the same patches in Dexed don't sound right. 

This is fascinating, since from what I gather, the DX9 is a 4 operator synth (like the DX27 and the DX 100 and the FB-01), while OPS7 and Dexed simulate the DX7, i.e. a 6 operator synth.

Were you able to load the Sysex files from the DX9 straight into Dexed and OPS7, or did you use a conversion utility first?

Yes.  The DX9 and DX7 are compatible for certain algorithms   I think only 8 algorithms work and two of the operators are not used.  This is a DX9 patch opened up in OPS7...

@waltercruz that would be a taste thing - I would have slid the sliders around whilst playing and the end result is what I liked.  Yes, I suppose to be true to the original TX816 I should have left the sliders alone!   If you also notice... I made some edits to the velocity curves.  That, too, would be a taste thing based on how my keyboard reacts.

@zimp woah! almost CS80 like for those pitch bends!

I kept the audio levels the same for each layer, but I didn't want the "twinkly bits" in the bass notes so I split the twinkly sounds to the upper octaves.  I notice that one of the layers has a -12 transpose on it, can't remember if I just liked it that way of if it was supposed to be like that.. sounds OK though!!

Posted by: @glenjdiamond

@waltercruz that would be a taste thing - I would have slid the sliders around whilst playing and the end result is what I liked.  Yes, I suppose to be true to the original TX816 I should have left the sliders alone!   If you also notice... I made some edits to the velocity curves.  That, too, would be a taste thing based on how my keyboard reacts.

I noticed the curves after! But after some reflection, probably this is the way to go, as OPS-7 'Unified' is even more powerful than the original TX816, so, the best thing to do is to use the full potential 😀