(updated 7/22/2021)
Frequently Asked Questions about Synclavier II and Synclavier systems
======================================================================
Notice:
All of the writing on this page is copyright Synhouse Multimedia Corporation 1999-2019.
No permission is granted for use of any part of this writing in any way whatsoever.
Do not copy it, do not share it, do not post it online, do not distribute it in any way.
======================================================================
Question 0: I'm interested in your special offer for the Synclavier II. Is it still available?
Answer: If you see it on Synclav.com, it is still available. It would not be on there if it were not for sale.
When they are sold, they are
removed from the page......instead of doing like one of the
out-of-business ex-competitors always did, listing and relisting the
same system (and never being
upfront and giving any actual prices for anything on the whole website,
the idea is to get people to write an e-mail, get the big schmooze, then
get hit with the price), then saying it is sold, then---instead of
removing an item that isn't available anymore---relisting it again and
again, marked with big red letters that say SOLD SOLD SOLD (to an undisclosed---but always happy---buyer).
From time to time, new Synclav.com specials are offered, usually put at
the top of the systems page. It's almost always current and if one of
the specials is sold, it's taken off the site.
Question 1:
I see your page and can't pay so much for things I don't need. I don't
need Direct-to-Disk because I already have a better hard disk recording
system, and I don't need sampling because I already have a better, more
modern sampler. I just need a Synclavier II with the FM voices, and
only 8 voices, because I use a DAW and polyphony will never be an issue.
(this is a question that comes all the time in various forms, has been
asked and answered many times over the past twenty years, the above is
just a comprehensive restating of several issues in one question)
Answer: This is FOUR ways wrong, as they don't
have a better sounding/performing disk recording system (what they have
is something that uses the same $2 Asian delta-sigma oversampling DAC
chip as a $30 CD player at K-Mart and can't even play its own tracks in
sync with itself, forget about keeping tracks in sync with external
time code...), they don't have a sampler that sounds anywhere near as good as the Synclavier
(the same $2 DAC and DSP sample rate conversion smashing all the tone
out of each note by sample rate converting every single note to 44.1
kHz---even the tonic note that was sampled at 44.1 kHz), and it doesn't
have the same quality of sampled sound libraries (you'll find that
sound libraries that cost $1,300-$4,950 each, some even $12,500, and
still command prices in the hundreds of dollars, were made with a lot
more studio budget and quality than $149 CD-ROM libraries made for
Asian boxes [Akai, E-mu E4-on, Ensoniq, Kurzweil K2xxx-anything,
Roland, Yamaha] that are pirated across the internet the first day),
and the partial timbre synthesis method of stacking up voices to create
rich, complex synthesizer sounds system means that an 8-voice Synclavier II
can't even play one note of some complex sounds (many of the most
famous sounds use eight voices per key, one or two complex sounds
actually use TEN voices per key), so polyphony is always an issue with the Synclavier II.
Question 2: I need a Synclavier, fully updated with everything, with FM voices only, I don't need the sampling or Direct-to-Disk.
Answer: This is not completely
possible, because everything NED did from April 1984 until the end in
June 1992 for the polyphonic sampling voices and Direct-to-Disk system.
So it's not going to be that updated. And in fact, very, very little
was done to change or improve the polyphonic sampling system after the
$14,000 full 100kHz stereo user sampling option (this is just the A/D
converters for input, the output/playback side of it was done and
working in October 1984) was added around June 1986. Basically they
just changed the software and some ROMs to allow a second or third poly
bin for 64 or 96 voices using an interface card they had already
designed back in 1983.
So when someone says they want synth voices only, they are cutting
themselves off from eight years of NED hardware and software
development (1985-1992), which was the period in which the most
engineers did the most work spending the most money to create the most
hardware and software.
NED didn't do anything with the Synclavier II synthesizer ("FM") voices after 1984.
NED didn't add anything new to the the Synclavier polyphonic sampling
voices after June 1986 (when the $14,000 100kHz user stereo sampling
option was in full production), just the capability of having more of
them with more memory.
Everything they did in hardware and software from 1985-1992 was an add-on to, or centered around, the Direct-to-Disk system.
This includes SyncNet and most of the full-color applications
(an option then, still an option now), DSP, and digital I/O, plus
almost anything added on many of the terminal pages, including all of
the terminal pages added in that eight year period (Sound File
Directory, Missing Sound Display, Sound File Editor, Optical Disk
Storage, Project Directory, Track Display, Audio Event Editor, not to
mention that the Subcatalog Directory, Sequence Editor, Recorder
Display, Multichannel Display, MIDI Display, Signal File Manager, and
even the whole main menu and menu concept itself didn't exist in synth
voice only times because there wasn't a need or a practical need for
it).
The Synclavier
polyphonic sampling system from late 1984 was the best sounding, best
performing digital sampler of all time then and it is still the best
now (35 years later), but avoiding the Direct-to-Disk option just cuts
the user off from everything that NED developed from 1986-1992. For
some users, that is fine and doesn't matter. For others (many), it ends
up with a lot of questions about "Why can't I do this?" or "Why don't I
have that?" and being reminded that Direct-to-Disk is used here at
Synhouse every day, wouldn't be without it.
If you are strictly working as a composer scoring to picture, not doing
sound effects, and not doing user sampling to create your own sounds,
but rather working from the huge Synclavier libraries all the time, and
recording only in Logic or Pro Tools, then yes, the Direct-to-Disk will
be something that you will never use.
It is, however, possible to order a custom built system that has only
synthesizer voices, but has the highest D processor and the best
updated software, and many of those have been built by Synhouse since
1992, but there's almost no benefit to it. Aside from being able to
access the VK Panel Option
(virtual keyboard on the Macintosh screen, either in parallel with the
real V/PK keyboard or instead of it) and the ability to boot and run
with no keyboard at all, really nothing is added, and it would be just
as well to have the C (Fast Processor) if it needs the MIDI Option
retrofitted to it, or the B processor if it doesn't need MIDI.
And for absolute, 100% faithful performance of the original famous Synclavier II synthesizer sounds, that really requires the oldest hardware, which brings us to the next question...
Question 2A: Which Synclavier system makes those famous sounds? I want that one.
Answer: Well, there actually aren't any particularly recognizable famous sounds from the Synclavier
(October 1984-June 1992, polyphonic sampling and V/PK keyboard w/76
wooden velocity/pressure keys). You are more likely to have heard that
on hundreds of television commercials, as sound effects in movies, or
on the Predator soundtrack.
The really, really famous and recognizable sounds, the sounds that simply could not have been made on any other instrument, are ALL from the older Synclavier II mini-system (June 1980-April 1984, ORK keyboard w/61 plastic keys).
The most famous Synclavier II
sounds are all the mono sounds on the factory disks, mostly disk 3. These
are synthesizer sounds such as the opening sound on Michael Jacksons'
Beat It, Naked Eyes' Always Something There to Remind Me, the George
Lucas THX/Lucasfilm/The Audience Is Listening sounds you still hear in
the theater before any movie, and some orchestral sounds which you'd
probably recognize from cinema and TV, such as the string symphony
sound (disk 3, bank 8, entry 2).
The Michael Jackson Beat It sound is disk 3, bank 5, entry 6. And Michael Jackson used the original/mono Synclavier II voices on the Thriller album for a simple reason: The Stereo Option voices didn't exist in 1982!
The
1985 Release J Synclavier software changed the timebase of the entire
system.
This was needed as a major performance improvement for the Fast
Processor, polyphonic sampling voices, adding the SMPTE Reader Option,
and doubling the tracks in the Memory Recorder from 16 to 32 (then to
200 later on). At the same time, the synthesizer parameters got more
precise mathematical precision and slightly
better tuning resolution.
For that reason, an absolute purist would have to have
an all-original Synclavier II with
original/mono voices (with the SS5 DAC output cards, not the Stereo
Option SS7 cards that sound slightly different and didn't exist when
any of those famous recordings were made) and no MIDI to get the exact same sound as the
Thriller album or other famous stuff. The older setup running one of the older software versions (something before Synclavier Release J) has more grit to it, the later
software made it smoother, and the later hardware has a slightly different sound with less clarity to it. This is probably not unlike comparing the
PPG Wave 2.2 to the 2.3, one is technically a lot better in capabilities than the other, but many
(if not most) people think the less capable one sounds better.
Question 2B: I feel like I want to get the 100kHz Direct-to-Disk live recording option with my Synclavier
order, but I'm going to spend some time pondering weather (sic, "Stormy
Weather...") or not to get the 16 tracks of DTD or just 4 or just the
Synclavier without any DTD at all...
Answer: This is understandable, $xxxx (prices have gone up again and again and will continue to, won't put pricing here, check the systems page
for current pricing) is a lot of bread, but there are several issues to
consider, here are a few details that might put it in a context that
will help you figure out what is worth what to you:
The $xxxxx system (cheapest DTD option) with 4 tracks of Direct-to-Disk
doesn't really make a lot of sense relative to the $xxxxx system (most
expensive DTD option), because for only $xK more, it is upgraded to the
latest NED spec with nearly all options and beyond that, it has four
times the tracks, the added flexibility of the MaxTrax upgrade (which
means doing 1, 2, or 4 tracks per drive, instead of just 1 or 2), and
the future-proof digital I/O of the UDIO module that will allow
lossless direct digital audio transfers to new DAWs and the lossless
importing of audio and samples from anything with AES/EBU or S/PDIF (CD
music from a CD player, DAWs, DATs, etc.) for use with the polyphonic sampling system.
For ripping sounds off vintage instruments, compiling and making sound
libraries, the Direct-to-Disk will be the best and fastest way to do
it. The Direct-to-Disk system offers sampling with limitless time
and superior audio metering
and quick cue/block editing and transfer to the poly bin using the Xfer
to poly function without driving yourself crazy re-arming the sampler,
sampling, then saving the file, then repeat, repeat, repeat 300 times
in a session. The Q. Audio Event Editor page is essentially a
user-configurable control panel of functions from other pages as well
as a lot of things only on the AEE page, and the block editing function
allows you to make hundreds or thousands of files as fast as you can
hear them. Really. If you are, say, ripping the entire set of sound
blocks quickly from a borrowed (another leading national brand)
sampler, you can just set the level on the meter bridge, the press
record on one track for mono or two tracks for stereo, and just play
each sound it has in each register it has a different sample, switch
through all of them, then stop. The cue/block editing function is then
used to save every one of those hundreds of sounds to their own file,
very quickly. Just set the basic file name, such as USA, then press
play, and as it plays and you listen, click the BLOCK button after each
sound has finished, all the way to the end of the recording, in real
time, then you will see that it has saved all those sounds on the
Synclavier Winchester (old term for hard drive, NED used it until the
end in the 90s, even though it was really a term from the 1970s)
automatically with the file names of USA001, USA002, USA003, etc.. Then
you can erase that DTD recording, and access those newly saved files by
loading them into the RAM of the poly bin using the wonderful L. Sound
File Editor page, and play them on the Synclavier keyboard. You can
then do micro-surgical editing of those sound files on the L. page, or
just do the basics of trimming the blank sound off the heads and tails,
and end up with the whole sound library in the new format. If that
recording/sampling was done in AES/EBU legal sampling rates like
44.1kHz, 48kHz, or 96kHz, then those can be transferred to another
platform via AES/EBU using the UDIO digital transfer module on the DTD.
If that sort of sound work were going to be the main usage, and not the
normal multitrack recording it was meant for, then a 4-track
Direct-to-Disk system with the UDIO added onto it might be fine. But
the full 16 tracks would still be a lot better.
It seems like a lot of money, but it's really not.
At the Synhouse/Synclav.com prices, the $xxK Reference Standard polyphonic sampling
system is about two cents on the dollar of the $250,000 it cost new.
The Direct-to-Disk 100kHz live recording option is not only the best
sounding/performing multitrack recording system of all time, but it was
also far and away the best and most expensive option available for the
NED system. When the average polyphonic sampling system was $250,000, adding 16 tracks
of Direct-to-Disk to that was another $240,000.
So if the $xxK Reference Standard polyphonic sampling system is about two cents on the
dollar of the $250,000 it cost new, the $xK upgrade to the $240,000
Direct-to-Disk is a penny on the dollar of the $240,000 it cost new.
The Direct-to-Disk is essentially a second Synclavier tower (though the latest PostPro SD
puts both in a single, very heavy tower, and Synhouse has built many
custom single tower systems with both polyphonic sampling and DTD in one tower) that
is optimized for live audio recording with SCSI drives emulating the
RAM for long track times. This is why it was as much money as a whole
other Synclavier then and still isn't a small amount of money now. It
is also very hardware intensive. Each option that was added to the NED
system was an entirely separate hardware subsystem, not just ten
million more lines of code added on to software that is already
bloatware and taxing the processor even more, which is how it is done
by Pro Tools, Cakewalk, Vision, Logic Audio, etc., etc., etc.. This is
just one of 10,000 reasons why the NED system performs better than
everything else.
For this reason, the 4-track Direct-to-Disk is the same second tower
with the same number of bins and power supplies and everything else as
the 16-tracks, it is just lacking a few of cards and drives, so it
usually makes economic sense to get all 16 with UDIO or no
Direct-to-Disk at all.
The only real exception to this considered justifiable would be for
someone who absolutely has to have digital I/O but is positive that
they will never, ever do any multitrack recording on the Direct-to-Disk
because they have to use something else like Pro Tools or Logic Audio.
In that case, they could add the UDIO to the $xxxx system for roughly
$1,300 more (2018 price).
Question 3: This type of set-up would work for me the best, and it sounds like it is the most user friendly to service as well.
Answer: Yes, the PSxx series
systems (October 1984-late 1988, a few more custom ordered after that)
in the classic blue ATS cases are definitely the easiest to move
around, with eight handles on each Control Unit, one set of handles on
each side in both the upright and laid down orientation, and with most
of the weight being split between two boxes, two normal strength guys
can easily move them in and out of a pickup truck, up five steps on a
porch, or most anywhere. They are also the easiest to work on, having
discrete 19" rack panels instead of doors, and this is partly why there
is a (presently $500) price premium on the polyphonic sampling systems with doors (the
other reasons are the relative rarity of the newer hardware, and
because the newer hardware is much, much more time consuming to
configure and test).
Question 4: I'm a professional
sound designer and I noticed your page. I have been wondering about
getting a Synclavier for quite some time. How many people still using
the Synclavier today?
Answer: There are hundreds of Synclavier IIs and Synclaviers in use today, but only a very small percentage are in professional use.
Question 5: I have seen the
Synclavier system Gary Rydstrom used at Skywalker Sound. It seemed very
powerful and quick in creating sounds, is it really so fast?
Answer: Yes, Lucas bought a lot
of NED systems and used them on everything. His people were also some
of the longest running users of the NED system.
When Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace came out in 1999, Lucas
and one of his sound designers showed 60 Minutes how they created the
special out-of-this-world sounds of the pod racers, etc., and they gave
a live demonstration in their studio, which had almost nothing but the
Synclavier V/PK keyboard in it, and they worked all the controls like
crazy to manipulate the sound. This was watched here with great
interest, and the entire piece went by without anyone
pointing out that the "state of the art sound creation system" they
were showing was 15 years old (in 1999) and was made by a company that
hadn't even existed for seven years! Their V/PK was covered with
Permacel tape with markings on all the keys and all the buttons, and
was worn down to the nubs from 15 years of nonstop use. The 6/1/2002
Mix Magazine article pretty well explained how, when, and why Skywalker
Sound got off the NED system (the lack of support from a now
out-of-business ex-competitor, er, their inability to make their own
lies come true regarding Macintosh operating systems).
The 60 Minutes piece really showed some of the finer points of the real time quickness of the Synclavier.
Question 6: Honestly, Does the Synclavier do something that modern systems do not?
Answer: It sounds better and performs better than modern systems.
Aside from that, no, not really anything.
Question 7: Does the Synclavier have a unique work flow that betters more modern digital samplers?
Answer: Not really sure what "work flow" is with a sampler.
"Work flow" probably means anything to anybody and 99% of all samplers
are sold to people who never use a single sample they made on it.
If someone were to go about
making really, really good musical samples and completely multisampled
keyboard performance patches for them on the Synclavier, it would be a
time consuming process. Not sure if anything else could do it faster,
though, as it takes a lot of time to do a lot of work. Maybe this is
why 99% of sampler owners have never used one of their own samples.
That said, once the sound was done on the Synclavier, it would sound better than anything else by a good measure.
When that sound would be put to use with several other Synclavier
sounds that were also made just as carefully, the grand total sum of
everything playing together would utterly dwarf the sound of any other
system. Nothing else would be even barely close to the sound of the
Synclavier.
Where the Synclavier really saw the most use was outside the pure music
field, in TV/film music and in spotting sound effects to picture. Not
only did nothing sound as good or perform as well, but nothing could do
it so quickly. That is why companies would buy one Synclavier, try it
out, then run out and buy five more, it increased productivity like
nothing before or since. For that kind of sampling, it was work flow
like wildfire, you could pick a library sound and place it on one of
200 tracks, slide it around in time, time compress a cue to fit a video
edit, or sample a sound off a DAT or multitrack and place it in a
keyboard patch in an instant, and save the total configuration of the
instrument. In that kind of situation, it was very, very fast, just
making a sample and putting it on a key with minimal modifiers, and
saving that.
It is in making massively multisampled keyboard patches with velocity
cross switching alternates where you end up spending hours or days
making it sound perfect all across the keyboard. This, of course,
accounts for a lot of the cost, all of the libraries were over $1,000,
most over $3,000, one even cost $12,500 and just the studio time making
it was over $200,000. Just placing samples to be retriggered to picture
was a very fast process.
Some of the more popular libraries of the 1990s and 2000s were
originally made for the Synclavier, and let's go ahead and spoil the
surprise and tell you that they sound better on the real system than
they do on the Asian boxes.
The real time modification that the Synclavier can do on sounds in the
analog and digital domain is very powerful and, for most things, very
quick to do. Above all, where some other systems might have some extra
convenience or functionality to them, the end resulting sound isn't
anywhere near as good as the Synclavier.
When you are making a sound with an Akai, E-mu, or Kurzweil, it goes one of two ways:
1) It screws up and sounds unusably bad.
2) All goes well......and it ends up sounding like a CD.
Neither sound anything like a Synclavier, which is more than double CD
quality and has infinitely more tone and power right from the start.
Then, when you get into doing things that use many voices, the gulf
between the Asian boxes and the Synclavier grows wider, because a
Synclavier has however many voices it says it has (usually 16 or 32,
but anything from 4 to 128 is theoretically possible), and the Asian
box says it has 64 or 128
voices, but "voices" is really one voice, because it's all virtual
voices, constant sampling rate TDM type of processes, and it all comes
out one $2 DAC like a sound card or CD player would have. This is one
of the top 10,000 reasons why it ends up sounding like a CD. Flat, and
squashed. That, plus the fact that the hardware is the same as on any
cheap CD player.
All of this isn't even touching on what was the most expensive and
important option (and invention of the Synclavier), the Direct-to-Disk
live recording option. It, too, sounds better and performs better than
everything else. The integration with the polyphonic sampling voices
and the ability to quickly flip any audio from the DTD tracks to the
keyboard and back just multiplies the power of the whole system.
It should also be pointed out that, although your questions seem to be
pointed mostly towards the Synclavier application being sound design
and a lot of important sound design has been done on the Synclavier
(from Back to the Future to Star Wars, much of it before the term
"sound design" even existed), sound design was never the main use for
the Synclavier......or anything else. Sound design hasn't been the sole
or main supporting business of any product or industry. Sound designers
have always been inventors of taking things from other fields and
putting them to new use in sound design.
So, if you ever get the cold feeling that the tools you are using weren't designed for you, that's because they weren't.
Question 8: As I was reading
about Gary Rydstroms work on Jurassic Park, I noticed the bit about the
Synclavier being able to stack multiple samples on one key. Am I to
understand that you have the ability to, say, place a sample with a
specific pitch on middle C, then stack another out of tune sample on
middle C and then tune it to match the pitch or harmonize with the
original sample?
Answer: Yes, that's pretty
pedestrian stuff on the Synclavier. You could probably do it with not
just different pitches tuned together, but different tuning systems per
sound (i.e., standard Western and some kind of microtonality).
You could do that four times without even having to think about it.
That is what the four partial buttons on the upper left side of the keyboard are for.
All NED systems use the partial timbre synthesis method (in this case
"synthesis" being the literal dictionary definition, to combine). When
you just do one sound, that has defaulted to partial #1, and the
PARTIAL 1 button will be illuminated (if you have the hardware V/PK, if
not, it will be illuminated on the button on the VK Panel on the Mac,
or both). You can press #2 and do another one there, then another two
more, then turn them on and off by pressing their buttons (like mutes
on a mixing console), then bias the audio levels between them with the
data wheel, or by patching in something else from the modulation matrix
to control it.
On the polyphonic sampling system, things are limited mostly by the RAM and voices
available. The number of samples that can be active on the
keyboard/Memory Recorder at any one time is unlimited, it is limited
only by the RAM you have to keep them in. That was a really big deal in
the late 1980s, when most other systems could only have eight sounds
active at one time. It was figured out here once and the answer was 304
or something like that, it was 76 keys x 4 sounds per key.
The Synclavier isn't doing anything in software, it's all hardware so
you have all the resources to use however you want all the time, up to
the limit of how much hardware you have. The system is never too slow
or not able to do what you want.
The Synclavier has the ability to play pitched and non-pitched samples,
the ability to play a normal keyboard pitched sound, then stack another
sound on top of it that had a predetermined pitch that was the same for
all keys. It was back in 1984 that Release I added the use of fixed
pitches for partial timbres, to create guitar pick or drumstick click
noises, or a key click to a Hammond organ sound, etc. to go along with
the pitched tone part of the sound, and other special tuning
functions were added.
Question 9: So if this is
possible, then this is quite amazing to be able to do "at the console"
rather than fussing about in a little window on a computer screen.
Answer: Yes, but only to a
certain extent, must be honest and take this opportunity to overturn a
myth here. For decades, people have been drawn to the Synclavier
because "It has buttons for everything, with buttons and functions laid
out in a 1:1 ratio, instead of having everything in menus!"
Well, those 160 red buttons on the V/PK are very nice, but this isn't an Asian box. The Synclavier has vastly more functions than 160 buttons and an alphanumeric LED matrix display can address.
The modern (post-1988) Synclavier uses a Mac as a terminal/user
interface, and it has menus and menus, and more menus inside those
menus...
Not that the Synclavier is a menu thing, but most everything in the
Synclavier has many, many functions and options to choose from.
Even some of the things you can choose from buttons you'd prefer to choose from a Mac screen.
If, for example, you need to assign the MIDI outputs to sounds or
tracks, or assign sounds or tracks to specific Multichannel Distributor
outputs, you can either:
1) look at the alphanumeric LED
matrix display and punch a button several times, then change the mode,
and then punch the button many more times, then repeat, repeat, repeat,
then go back toggling through the modes to verify those settings or
2) just type H or J on the Mac
keyboard to go to the Multichannel Distributor or MIDI display page,
take a quick glance at the grid that shows what it routed to what, and
use the mouse/arrows and keyboard to change those values to what you
want.
All of the sample selection and editing is done on the screen of the Mac.
Once you have selected the sound and made it live on the keyboard, all
the synth-style real time editing parameters (six stage envelopes, the
most precise and beautiful chorus ever, vibrato with 20-some waveforms,
the modulation matrix, etc., etc., etc...) are done without looking at
the Mac. Once you save your work (if you do, at the Mac), it can be
recalled from the keyboard if you like (so long as you are in the
correct subcatalog of the Winchester hard drive).
Some people criticize the MIDI implementation of the Synclavier as
being poor, but MIDI doesn't even barely address ANYTHING that the
Synclavier can do:
The
Synhouse Master Sound File Library for the polyphonic sampling systems has 14,772 sound files
available at the click of the mouse. What MIDI patch number calls those
up?!?!?
Instead of simply using a string
symphony sound, you can program individual tracks of single violins and
single violas and tune each one individually in Hertz to make a rich
string symphony with the precise amount of pitch width/chorusing you
desire, and save that all to disk. MIDI can't do that.
Any time you go outside the NED box, you are taking a big step down.
Although it's impossible to sell a polyphonic sampling system without
MIDI, it was surprising to see how many big post houses were using
$250,000-$500,000 Synclaviers that didn't have MIDI on them. They never
used it. They did pretty much everything inside the NED system, and
used the SMPTE/VITC to sync to everything else. The polyphonic sampling
voices sounded better than anything else, and the 200 track Memory
Recorder was better than any other sequencer, and the total setup of
everything could be saved to a sequence file for total recall at the
next session, so there was no compelling reason to stoop down to
something else, in most cases.
Question 10: What is the learning curve?
Answer: Every aspect of the
system that people normally use is very easy to learn. Most of it is
completely self-explanatory just by looking at the legend on the button
panel.
Even in the early 1980s, people could walk up to a Synclavier II and
make a multitrack multitimbral composition in just a few minutes.
That said, there are many aspects to the system, and learning all of them well could take years.
Question 11: What are some lesser known uses of the Synclavier II on records?
Answer: A lot. Here's one: The
1985 Play Deep album by The Outfield. They recorded it at Air in
London, and, although they aren't known as a Synclavier band, song #6
Mystery Man has more Synclavier II synthesizer sound in it than almost
anything else. It sounds good, too. It starts with a freaked-out FM
effect passage, then uses the Synclavier II Hammond B3 organ sound and
a really awesome could-only-be-a-Synclavier II grinding synth sound.
And those guys could really sing in tune. Which brings on the next
question...
Question 12: What's a really well known use of the Synclavier II on a record?
Answer: The Genesis song That's
All from 1983, they used the Synclavier II Hammond B3 organ sound
(preset) for the B3 solo because they thought it sounded better than
the real one would in the track, it stood out better.
Question 13: What's the difference between the sound of the Synclavier and everything else?
Answer: Users say that nothing
approaches the body of the sound given off by the Synclavier, and it's
not even close. They love the power of some of the new software synths
and some samplers too, but they all
sound thin in comparison to the Synclavier. People who are not
able to experience the difference won't know what they are missing.
The big difference between the sound of the Synclavier and everything
that has come out in the last 30 years (since 1987) can be boiled down
to these four things:
1)
everything else uses constant rate sampling instead of variable rate
sampling, therefore every note is (poorly) sample rate converted, no note of the Synclavier is ever
sample rate converted (unless you intentionally sample rate convert it
with the Signal File Manager software or the DSP70 for some
reason---the NED system did sample rate conversion in 1981-82, eight
years before anything else could), try sample rate conversion on all
your recorded masters and CDs and see how that sounds compared to the
original unconverted recordings
2) the DAC output hardware is vastly superior
a) 100x the cost
b) real resistor string instrumentation DACs, not delta-sigma DACs (1-bit, MASH, etc.)
c) not using oversampling
d) the outputs are not filtered
(everything else has "noise shaping filters" to compensate for how
terrible the cost cutting oversampling
technique is)
3) every voice and each channel of
every voice, and each partial of every channel of every voice of...(to
infinity) is coming from an entirely separate digital audio/analog back
end hardware subsystem, 1 sound is from 1 DAC (where anything else has
128 "voices" created and mixed in the digital domain and coming out of
a single consumer-grade CD player DAC) this is why a Synclavier
simulated orchestra sounds like dozens of instruments coming at you
from many places, not a mixed/smashed/sample rate converted CD
4) all the separate voices are mixed
and attenuated (or muted by being physically disconnected if not
sounding) in the analog domain in the Multichannel Distributor, which
is the equivalent of a computer-controlled analog mixing console, this
always sounds better and more like you expect to hear it than mixing in
the digital domain, ask any record producer who has made records in the
last 50 years
and a bonus #5
5) the libraries are better and were made to a scale that doesn't exist anymore
Notice how this answer didn't glibly dismiss everything else by merely
saying "the Synclavier has 100kHz sampling, therefore it is better than
anything that doesn't"?
The fact that it is 100kHz instead of 44.1kHz is just an extra bonus,
the Synclavier sounds better than anything else even when it is doing
44.1kHz. And it can do any sampling rate down to 1kHz, for super deep
bass and grungy grinding sound design effects, and can play back 100kHz
samples at up to 400kHz.
It takes some real listening and experience to figure out that it isn't just 100kHz versus 44.1kHz that makes it better.
A look at the Synclavier circuit boards will show just how poor and abbreviated the hardware is on everything else.
Question 14: Why
is the older Synclavier II mini-system (June 1980-April 1984, ORK keyboard w/61 plastic keys) called
the Synclavier II and the newer one called the Synclavier (October
1984-June 1992, V/PK keyboard w/76 wooden velocity/pressure keys)?
Answer: Because of stupidity. The Synclavier II
that went into production in
June of 1980 (relatively mass produced with venture capital) was a
considerable advance in design, packaging, and functionality over the
relatively handmade original 1978 Synclavier that, before the internet,
almost no one ever heard of (only a few academics and avant garde
musicians had heard of it), maybe one was made at the end of 1977
without a keyboard and 19 more were made with keyboards in 1978 and
1979 (those numbers are approximate). Again, before the internet, no
one except the people at New England Digital called it "II" as in the
Synclavier II, it was always referred to in the 80s as the Synclavier,
and you can check many, many album credits as a reality check on that.
Actually, it was even dumber and more cringey than that, NED didn't
call it the Synclavier II, they called it Synclavier II, as seen in the June 1980 introductory advertisement for it,
"ANNOUNCING THE END OF SYNTHESIZERS AS YOU NOW KNOW THEM --- INTRODUCING SYNCLAVIER II"
This confusing nonsense was finally stopped after production of the Synclavier II
mini-system ended in April of 1984. The V/PK (Velocity/Pressure
Keyboard) and polyphonic sampling hardware/software development were
being completed and in the second half of 1984 and the new system was
simply named Synclavier.
Question 15: What happened with the Synclavier II synthesizer voices after 1984?
Answer: Nothing, basically. The Synclavier II
was discontinued April of 1984. The last ones made would have probably
had Release H5 software, just a wrinkle different than H, H2, H3, etc.,
most out there were running Release H or even something much older (the
famous blue Synclavier II manual came out New Year's Day 1982 and was
based on Release G, actually ALL of the Synclavier II
Releases were good and there were no bad ones, just a lot of functions
added along the way and support for newly added hardware that didn't
exist in the beginning).
A few hybrid nameless systems came out in the interim between then and the introduction of the polyphonic sampling Synclavier
in October 1984, and at least several of the V/PK (Velocity/Pressure
Keyboard) keyboards (new in July 1984 for $11,000.......less a fake
$3,500 trade-in credit for the old ORK keyboard, a keyboard they didn't
want back and wouldn't take back, just a part of trying to make good on
their idiotic 1980 promise that no part of the Synclavier II
would ever become obsolete, uh, let's go ahead and tell how that story
ends, the last systems off the line in 1992 didn't have one single
board---out of 70-150 boards per system---in common with the June 1980 Synclavier II,
so yes, by definition, it was 100% obsolete, as it really had been by
1985, for the most part) were retrofitted to existing mini-systems
using a new cable, a few hardware changes to the Control Unit, and a
crippled patch version of the software called Release V (V for
Velocity, the only one in the Release A-Release O series out of
sequence, Release V came after Release H [actually H5, the last version
of software for the Synclavier II] and Release I [the first version of
software for the Synclavier]) to let it work with the old hardware before the proper Synclavier
Release I (the first proper version of software made with the
Synclavier name) came out. Release V left a lot of the keyboard buttons
dead, for example half of the 32 individual track arming buttons for
the Memory Recorder, as the Memory Recorder
was only 16-track until the proper version Release I came out with
support for 32 tracks. Less than three years later, Release M expanded
the Memory Recorder 200 tracks with an eight million note capacity (and
chain, insert, and delete features, selective MIDI filtering, MIDI song
pointer, MIDI echo, the mapping of input MIDI channels to the Memory
Recorder, a new hard disk catalog structure allowing a chain of up to
four hard disks on each of two SCSI ports with up to 8 gigabytes of
storage per system...).
These few mid-1984 hybrid nameless systems were nameless because NED
had stopped using the Synclavier II name anywhere. The disks didn't say
Synclavier II and the manuals didn't, either. They were still using old
panel designs that said Synclavier II on them, but in advertisements
and brochures they blacked out the "II" on those panels, as they did on
the remote button panel units for the Synclavier II Digital Guitar
system.
NED re-edited the old Synclavier II synth sound libraries for the
velocity, wheels, and alphanumeric screen of the V/PK that came out in
July 1984, making names you could see on the screen instead of just
Roland-style bank and entry numbers like "5-6", and completely stopped
developing anything having to do with the Synclavier II synthesizer
voices. The Stereo Option Synclavier II voice cards used from mid-1983
through April 1984 (and beyond, in polyphonic sampling systems that had
polyphonic sampling voices + synth voices, well more than 95% of those synth voice
cards were used cards recycled from removals and trade ins but
sold/given as new, which is illegal) used a screwy adapter called a SAM
(Stereo Adapter Module) to jam two SS7 cards into one slot meant for
the SS5 card of the original (mono) voices, it used a huge amount of
hardware and was very labor intensive to build, sawed by hand with a
hacksaw because they used the wrong connector type, and they couldn't
be machine soldered, they had to be entirely hand soldered and only
after bending all the pins around because, again, they used the wrong
connector type.
In March 1986 they did make a proper synthesizer backplane that had
enough slots for all the cards (no explanation given for why they
didn't just do that in 1983), reducing the amount of hardware used and
the amount of manual labor required to build them, and added an inch to
the existing Synclavier II SS7 card so that the tail would be in the
same place for the wiring harness, and that new SS7X card (eXtended)
was used sometimes in place of the old backplane and old SS7 cards, but
more often than not, some or all of the other cards in there
(SS1-SS2-SS3-SS4) were used cards recycled from Synclavier II trade
ins. The backplane and card wiring circuit was electrically the same,
the componentry was the same, so the sound was exactly the same as the
SS7 before it, and the other cards (SS1, SS2, SS3, SS4) were the same
as for all the rest before it.
NED had a bad and illegal habit of putting used cards in new machines.
Many systems have been examined that had cards that were years older
than the purchase date. Considering the extremely high cost of RAM ICs
and other ICs used, and the fact that many of those RAM ICs had their
prices lowered month after month following their release dates, it is a
total impossibility that NED, for example, manufactured M32K cards and
held them in stock, then installed them still new four years later. In
1985 they sold a guy a system with an entire bin of synth cards that
were four years old!
Making this all even more confusing is that they did
manufacture a few more batches of synth cards along the way (in 1985,
again a very few in 1987-1988, it's unlikely any were made after that)
to cover card shortages from failed cards and the fact that many of the
trade ins were mono systems with SS5 output cards that could not be
used in the PSxx polyphonic sampling systems (panning polyphonic
sampling voices should be used alone, or with Stereo Option synthesizer
voices, not the original/mono SS5 type). And when they did make those
few cards again, they had new revision numbers (which for NED means
date codes, like SS1-180 means an SS1 of the January 1980 revision) put
on the same old cards. They did this again and again, sometimes even
putting new mistakes in old boards that had to be corrected by hand
with jumpers. For example, the SS1-180 and SS1-1085 have the same
components connected in the same circuit, but a different name on them
for no reason.
In software, no new functions, bug fixes, or improvements were done for the synthesizer voices after July 1984.
NED never made any new synth sounds, never added new synth parameters, and never advertised the synths after 1984.
Question 15: I'm assuming the polyphonic sampling cards can also do the FM/additive synthesis in addition to sample playback.
Answer: No, not both. And, to be really clear, no other sampler does, either.
The Synclavier polyphonic sampling cards are the cards that do polyphonic sampling playback.
The Synclavier II synthesizer voice cards are the cards that do
"FM/additive synthesis", as you say (more to really clarify on that in
another question below).
The polyphonic sampling voices play waveforms that can be from a
variety of sources, mostly audio samples from the libraries of great
sounds, but the Signal File Manager software can create standard
synthesizer waveforms and alter them with a variety of methods in the
digital domain right there in SFM, so you don't need
to start with a real audio sample, though it really speeds things up to
do so, and it's the normal way, as with any sampler ever made.
Question 16: Do you have any idea the sound difference between the Synclavier II and the Yamaha DX series?
Answer: The sound difference is
total, and there is nothing whatsoever in common between the DX-series
and the NED synths, mostly because the concept, hardware, and
everything else are completely different.
Question 17: What are the FM voices? Basically like a Yamaha DX7, right?
Answer: (short answer) Well, to
start off, they aren't FM voices. The Synclavier II is a highly complex
additive (precision control over many harmonics, partial timbre
synthesis method to stack many oscillators/different sounds) and
subtractive (4-selection fixed analog filters on the output
synthesizer. On the Synclavier II, FM is just an effect added to the
sound using the FM Ratio control, but that is the effect that makes classic Synclavier II sounds what they are, making those way-out harmonic sidebands.
To clarify, the Synclavier II synthesizer voices do not do "FM
synthesis" as in DX7 style synthesis, which is a programmable digital
algorithm synthesizer with different algorithms. The Synclavier II
synthesizer voices play waveforms that can be from a variety of
sources, mostly harmonics dialed in with the controls on the keyboard
control panel, and they can apply FM as an effect, like FM on a modular
analog synth. It does not create the high frequency harmonic overtones
of the DX7, nor the round Rhodes electric piano sounds the DX7 is known
for.
Question 18: What are the FM voices? Basically like a Yamaha DX7, right?
Answer: (long answer) Well, to
start off, they aren't FM voices. The Synclavier II is a highly complex
additive (precision control over many harmonics, partial timbre
synthesis method to stack many oscillators/different sounds) and
subtractive (4-selection fixed analog filters on the output
synthesizer. On the Synclavier II, FM is just an effect added to the
sound using the FM Ratio control, but that is the effect that makes classic Synclavier II sounds what they are, making those way-out harmonic sidebands.
No relationship can be found between the 1978 Synclavier/1980
Synclavier II and the Yamaha DX-series at all. It's been discussed and
researched here for over 25 years. The hardware is 100% different, the
concept and architecture is 100% different with not so much as a single
parameter in common, and the sound is very different.
The DX7 can do a number of really good piano sounds (excellent Rhodes
piano sounds on Whitney Houston records, etc.) that the Synclavier II
can't do. The Synclavier II does NOT do good piano sounds.
The Synclavier II does an amazing variety of string sounds from gypsy
fiddles to string symphonies, where the DX7 hasn't had any good strings
of any type at all, ever. The DX7 pads are a joke. The Synclavier II
makes some string sounds, both solo and ensemble, that are far better
than any on any Yamaha DX series instrument. They have a depth and
detail that is uncanny. That line from the old 1980 Synclavier II
advertisement about hearing the rosin on the bow wasn't just a line, it
is really true. Some of the string sounds you'd recognize right away,
like disk 3, bank 8, entry 2.
The DX7 can do a lot of unique pitched or non-pitched percussive sounds
like koto, log drum (Lost In Emotion), and others which cut through a
track like nothing else.
The Synclavier II (mostly with upgrades and the later third party
sounds to access 2,000+ sounds with alphanumeric names quickly from a
hard drive) can do a lot of synthy types of sounds, some digital
sounding, some analog sounding, which are simply amazing. It can make a
buzz and grind like nothing else. This is a matter of opinion, but most
people would think that the DX7 hasn't ever had any
good synthy types of sounds, and the fact that almost 100% of the
thousands of records the DX7 was used on were using purely imitative
sounds (Rhodes, piano bass [Danger Zone], tubular bells, harpsichords,
etc.) really confirms that.
The DX7 and Synclavier II sound completely different. A lot of the
characteristic Synclavier II sound is coming from the analog filters.
They are not typical dynamic synthesizer filters controlled by ADSR
envelopes or anything like that, just two switches to select four
different fixed settings on the output: high filtered, high/mid
filtered, high and high mid filtered (the default setting for every NED
sound preset, this is essentially how it is supposed to sound), and
unfiltered. These filters really make the sound what it is and give it
a low buzzing rumble. Saying it has a low growl like a like a
Memorymoog or OB-X might be an exaggeration, but it kind of does.
The DX7 doesn't have any analog filters controlled by the user, it
doesn't sound like it has any analog filters at all, and if it does it
is just some sort of noise shaping filter that is well out of the
normal audio band (as the DX7 is especially known for having audible
harmonic overtones very high up in the audio band that wouldn't exist
if any filter were there with a cutoff set to 15kHz or less).
The comparison of the sounds of the DX7 and the Synclavier II in an
audio spectrum analyzer shows that it is like comparing a tuba and a
snare drum, they have no harmonic characteristics in common.
(anything heard here about FM patents, payments, and licensing is
unverified rumor that can't be verified and therefore won't be repeated
here)
Comparing the user interface and controls of the DX7 (What controls?)
and the Synclavier II (128 LED buttons, numeric display, data wheel),
there is a little more immediacy with the Synclavier II, as there are
dedicated controls (large illuminated red LED buttons) for all the
harmonics, 6-stage envelope generators, FM, and more, right on the
keyboard, and with a newer (Synclavier w/Synclavier II synthesizer
voices added) and better equipped (highest D processor and updated
software) system, you don't even need the keyboard, you can access all
160 buttons of the V/PK right on the Macintosh screen. If you have the
correct hardware to sample or have sound files already on disk, you
can do Resynthesis/analysis on the screen, and play that sample as a
Resynthesized sound right through the synthesizer voices. The Yamahas
can't do any of that.
The basic difference between the Synclavier II and the DX7 is........everything:
The
Synclavier II can play any waveform you can imagine out of the
oscillators. Anything. You make your own waveform by dialing up all
your desired harmonics using the harmonic controls on the left hand
side of the keyboard (similar to the functionality claimed by the
Beilfuss Performance Synthesizer, difference here is that the
Synclavier II actually exists), and that data is loaded into the
wavetable memory and played by the oscillators. That, of course, is
just the original method of doing it from day one in 1980, the later
Sample-to-Disk and Resynthesis developments allow you to load snippets
of recorded live audio samples (similar to the PPG Wave sound
generating method) into those wavetable memories using the Signal File
Manager software, and play that out the oscillators (Frank Zappa called
that fake poly voices). The DX7 can only do a low accuracy sine wave,
no other waves at all.
If you look up on the panel of your
DX7, you will see that it is, according to the panel graphics, a
"Programmable Digital Algorithm Synthesizer". This is a perfect
description of it, as you can see the diagrams on there showing the
different (preset) ways that the six operators (oscillators) can be
patched together as carriers and modulators. This gives the user
different algorithms to choose from, and those make the internal
"patch".
The Synclavier II doesn't have any
programmable algorithms at all, it just has one internal "patch" and it
doesn't change. It applies FM as an effect, you can just set the FM
amount, that's it.
A hundred lifetimes with the Synclavier II won't give you a clue as to
how to program the DX7, and a DX7 plus all the DX7 programming skills
in the world won't touch the capabilities of the Synclavier II. There
really is no common ground here. A quick look at the buttons on the
Synclavier II will show you that it has nothing to do with all the
rate/level scaling stuff that is in all the DX7 menus.
Question 19: So then are they called "FM voices" or Synclavier II synthesizer voices?
Answer: A
general rule applies: If it has the FM effect on it (which polyphonic
sampling voices can't have), it will be referred to here as the
Synclavier II synthesizer voices, because that is what they are. It
doesn't matter if it is installed in a Synclavier II made in 1980 or a Synclavier 9600
with the optional synthesizer voices made in 1990, the voices are the
same and the voice architecture is the same, the sounds are being
created in SS1, SS2, SS3, and SS4 cards that are the same in all
systems with synthesizer voices. The only difference is in the output
cards that can be SS5 (original/mono), SS6 (stereo), SS7 (stereo), or
SS7X (stereo).
Question 20: What is Resynthesis?
Answer: Live sampled audio played by a synthesizer.
Resynthesis makes sounds that aren't real sounds, but they have an
uncanny realness to them in some ways, sort of a caricature of a real
sound. You can tell it's a synthesizer, but it has an element of
realism to it.
In 1984, NED created Resynthesis (fully implemented in Synclavier
Release I---and really never updated or revisited again) as an offshoot
of the Sample-to-Disk system (Full name: Synclavier II Digital
Analysis/Synthesis Option) from back in late 1981/early 1982.
When the Synclavier II came out in June of 1980, it was a sophisticated additive digital synthesizer, it could can
play any waveform out of the oscillators by dialing up the desired
harmonics using the harmonic controls on the left hand side of the
keyboard, and that data was loaded into the wavetable memory and played
by the oscillators.
The Sample-to-Disk and Signal File Manager software that came with it
made them realize that with some software changes, ANY data values
could be loaded into those wavetable memories, even digitally sampled
live audio samples, if they were just cut down to tiny snippets of real
sound, just one single waveform cycle in length, using the Signal File
Manager software. This is similar to the sound generating method of the
PPG Wave synthesizers. Frank Zappa referred to this as fake poly
voices, which he used for a while before making the $165,000 upgrade to
polyphonic sampling voices (which required a total repackaging of the
system, new keyboard, new computer bin, etc.), after which he never
used Resynthesis or the Synclavier II synthesizer voices ever again.
Question 21: What is the difference between a Synclavier Digital Music System and a Synclavier Digital Audio System?
Answer: A lot. Or nothing,
depending. They were just NED terms that were almost arbitrarily
applied to systems by silkscreening them on the rack panels, keyboard
front panel, and keyboard rear panel. Two identical PSMT polyphonic
sampling systems made in 1987 might say Synclavier Digital Music System
on one and Synclavier Digital Audio System on the other (and the latter
might have MIDI on the keyboard button panel and badly silkscreened
markings overall, and panels powdercoated black instead of black
anodized, it varies a little, functionality is the same) but are
exactly the same system.
It actually went like this:
(June 1980-April 1984)
Synclavier II Digital Synthesizer (silkscreened on the front and rear ORK keyboard rear panels, and on the front and rear rack panels)
(July 1984 only)
Synclavier (silkscreened on the
V/PK keyboard rear panel, Synclavier Digital Music System on the V/PK
keyboard front panel, most people have never seen this, but the
hardware exists at Synhouse, it's very rare, the late George Duke had
this type)
(July 1984- roughly mid-1987)
Synclavier Digital Music System (silkscreened on the V/PK keyboard front and rear panels)
(some referred to this as the "DMS", but when they did,
they usually meant those few odd systems made/upgraded in mid-1984 and
later that were a Synclavier II mini-system Control Unit with a V/PK
keyboard [and later MIDI] retrofitted onto it, and not the polyphonic
sampling system that was produced from late 1984 through mid-1987 with
Synclavier Digital Music System on the V/PK keyboard front and rear
panels)
(roughly mid-1987-June 1992)
Synclavier Digital Audio System (silkscreened on the V/PK keyboard front and rear panels)
The famous blue Synclavier II manual says Synclavier II Digital
Synthesizer, the silver 3-book box set of manuals says Synclavier
Digital Music System, the spiral bound books that came here and there
around 1986-1988 can say Synclavier Digital Music System or Synclavier
Digital Audio System, the smaller black books that came in library
boxes say Synclavier Digital Audio System.
NED liked to make up a lot of names that had little meaning ("PostPro"
was a "Direct-to-Disk" with nothing changed, but they filed for
registered trademarks on both, both were put interchangeably on the
same machines), and filed lots and lots of copyrights, patents, and
registered trademarks, none of which ever made any money in production
or prosecution, and never restrained a competitor from doing anything,
and NED repeatedly signed those copyrights, patents, and registered
trademarks over to banks, venture capitalists, pretty much anyone who
showed up with money. Countless machines from NED, The Synclavier
Company, etc. say Synclavier Digital Music System on one side and
Synclavier Digital Audio System on the other side.
It doesn't mean anything. What makes a Synclavier what it is is the hardware inside.
Question 22: What is ORK and what is VPK?
Answer: The ORK (stands for ORiginal Keyboard) is the Synclavier II
keyboard, it was made from June 1980-April 1984, has 61 plastic keys
without velocity, 128 large red LED buttons, and numerical LED display.
It's almost always natural wood color (hand rubbed mahogany). The V/PK
(stands for Velocity/Pressure Keyboard) is the Synclavier
keyboard, it was made from July 1984-June 1992, has 76 wooden keys with
velocity and pressure sensitivity, 160 large red LED buttons,
alphanumerical LED matrix display, Moog wheels, large ribbon
controller, and Yamaha breath controller input. It almost always has a
black finish.
There are various alternate finishes and subtypes of hardware in/on each.
Question 23: I see your special offer at the top of your system page for a Synclavier II. It doesn't say MIDI, but it has MIDI, right?
Answer: No. The internet tends to roll 13 years of hardware into one mythical instrument that was always available.
The Synclavier II (June 1980-April 1984, ORK keyboard w/61 plastic
keys) never hand MIDI. The MIDI Option hardware didn't exist until 15
months after the Synclavier II was discontinued, and the first software
Release with MIDI didn't exist until 25 months after the Synclavier II
was discontinued (a temporary version called K and various beta
versions were used before that to test the hardware/software, but
Release L from May 1986 was the first version. No floppy disk of
software supporting MIDI has ever said "Synclavier II" on it.
In fact, all through 1985, lots of $250,000 polyphonic sampling systems
were shipped that also didn't have MIDI. They didn't have SCSI for most
of 1985, either, again because the hardware didn't yet exist.
This is a good question and might be the biggest misunderstanding
people have about these systems. Most people coming to the party now
are assuming that exists what they want exists, and it doesn't, it
never did.
A lot of buyers, particularly younger players, want a smaller system
with Synclavier II synthesizer voices, MIDI, SCSI interface, SCSI hard
drive, and Superfloppy (because those three things are system
requirements of the MIDI hardware/software, well, technically, there
are ways around it, but those ways are more cumbersome than just doing
it the right way with MIDI, SCSI hard drive, and Superfloppy), also the
Macintosh interface/Macintosh computer, and sometimes the V/PK
velocity keyboard if they want to pay approximately $1,500 more.
But absolutely none of those things (except the Synclavier II
synthesizer voices) existed during the production run of the Synclavier
II (June 1980-April 1984, ORK keyboard w/61 plastic keys).
Many, many of the famous Synhouse/Synclav.com compact Synclavier IIs
with MIDI were built and sold all through the 2000s (only privately and
on eBay from 2001-2003 because Synclav.com didn't go online until 2004)
by taking all those V/PKs, fast processors, Superfloppies, Winchester
hard drives, memory, and MIDI cards off of $250,000 polyphonic sampling
systems, which was an expensive habit that (at least for 10-15 years
until all the missing parts were replaced with new production) took a
lot of polyphonic sampling systems out of the market.
You can write directly to hear a more complete list of the more than
$3,000 ($3,282 as of 12/2018) parts that have to be added/changed to
make the later MIDI Option work on the Synclavier II, but basically the
Synclavier II synthesizer systems came with the B processor/ORK
keyboard combination which can't possibly run polyphonic sampling
voices, so that was pretty much the dividing line in the development of
the system from Synclavier II to Synclavier.
Very generously, NED later (1986 and 1987) made somewhat
cracked/crippled Releases of MIDI-enabled software for Synclavier IIs
with the ORK keyboard and also for Synclavier IIs that had been
retrofitted with the V/PK keyboard. Some of these are very good, quite
remarkable, with amazing MIDI implementation (an ORK version that
responds to incoming MIDI velocity even though the ORK doesn't have
velocity keys, and has many buttons repurposed for new uses with MIDI),
but still aren't anywhere near having a real Synclavier with polyphonic sampling voices, updated software, and the highest D processor.
This is how the costs got to where they are, and why the polyphonic
sampling systems are relatively cheaper with a lot more options
included as standard (because a MIDI/C/SCSI/Mac/SMPTE/VPK system has
many key pieces of a polyphonic sampling system included in the price,
because that's where those pieces of hardware came from).
This minimal 1 MIDI input/4 MIDI outputs upgrade retrofitted to a
Synclavier II cost $8,500 from NED in 1986 (and that's without the hard
drive upgrade, and the system is not sensible without the hard drive,
and just that hard drive alone would have been $7,500 more), and was
$4,000 from one of the now out-of-business ex-competitors in 1997.
Synhouse/Synclav.com (2001-2018 and beyond) has never charged more than
$1,850 for it as a package price if it can be done at the time of a
system build and the older hardware is traded in for use in other
system builds/repairs.
Question 24: Does the Synhouse Reference Standard Synclavier PSMT system have stereo voices? Or mono?
Answer: The correct term there
that we need to stick to is just what it says on the page, "panning
polyphonic sampling voices", as it says on the systems page. The
opposite of which is "non-panning", which it says on the hardware page.
It is hard to grasp what "panning" means, so
it should be explained:
It does not have anything to do with stereo user sampling or stereo
sample playback (any
Synclavier can play back a true stereo sample using two voices
automatically assigned left and right in the mixed outs or to two
channels of the multichannel
distributor on a system so equipped, and all systems should be so
equipped).
"Panning" means that the whole voice card of four sample playback
voices coming from four separate single channel DACs is doubled by
adding four MORE separate single channel DACs, and played in unison
(phase locked which only the Synclavier can do so it doesn't have phase
cancellation in normal play, velocity cross-switching, etc.). The
relative amplitude (volume) of the left and right channels
are biased based upon the software-controlled stereo parameters (LFO
making panning
tremelo, ribbon controller pans left and right, exactly the same as on
the Synclavier II
stereo synth voices). This was a VERY expensive way to make panning,
but it is a beautiful effect, incredibly clean with no audio artifacts
whatsoever. It makes the famous ADR Panscan effect sound like dirt.
The panning polyphonic sampling voices are very good for doing sound
design and doing synthy sounds (the polyphonic sampling voices can act
as synthesizers in many ways, you can transform a cello sample into an
Oberheim 4-voice string pad in 30 seconds with a few tweaks at the
keyboard), they just can't apply FM as an effect the way the Synclavier
II synthesizers do), but it is of no benefit when playing sampled
sounds (violins, drums, etc.) that are supposed to sound
natural. It's an effect.
To repeat, any Synclavier
(even 3200 "mono" voices) can play back a true stereo sample using two
voices automatically assigned left and right, and a Synclavier panning
polyphonic sampling voice setup will play back a true stereo sample
exactly the same way, by using two voices automatically assigned left
and right, although in that case, it can still
do the fake stereo mode panning effect with that stereo sample as well.
It's really a remarkable system. And keep in mind that since playing a
true stereo sample is using two voices, it will cut the available
polyphony in half, so if it is a 32 voice system, it will have 16 note
polyphony.
It is best to avoid the "mono" term that everyone else uses. From "Oh,
it's not polyphonic?" to "It's not a stereo sampler?", it causes lots
of confusion.
The first samping option from NED, the Synclavier II
Digital Analysis/Synthesis Option AKA the Sample-to-Disk system from
back in late 1981/early 1982 (the 2U rack unit with the big silver knob
on it) was
monophonic in polyphony and monophonic in audio (it was just one single
channel DAC output). So here at Synhouse, it's always been said to be
"panning" or "non-panning".
The system software utility page that sets up the system configuration
so it will play correctly refers to panning voices as "standard" and
non-panning voices as "Mono/3200". Some might also refer to non-panning
"Mono/3200" voices as "sound design voices", as these were the voice
cards used in the latest and last NED system, the PostPro SD, even though the panel had two output jacks on it.
Question 25: What are the stereo option synthesizer voices shown on your hardware page? What's stereo about it?
Answer: This is a good
question. And the answer should be known. That page shows two sorts of
hardware, the "original style mono" and the "stereo option"
synthesizer voices. It's just an extra channel of output card that can
be used in patches. None of the famous Synclavier sounds or the famous
3-disk NED preset sounds use this extra channel (they were made three
years before the stereo hardware/supporting stereo software existed).
The "original style mono" were all that existed
from 1980 to the first half of 1983, and while no one
seems to know and acknowledge this, NONE of the famous songs/soundtracks of
Synclavier II synth voices were stereo, they simply didn't exist then,
so if someone is buying it strictly for the famous sounds and insists
on the stereo option, this is nonsense, none of the famous sounds were
done with the stereo option.
You can see from the list of cards in those sets on the hardware page
that it is all the same stuff in any revision, mono or stereo, up to
the last card(s), which is the output, so it can be one SS5 or two
SS7/SS7X cards. It isn't computing twice as many sounds inside there,
just making an extra channel that can be routed to, if desired.
Let's consider a 16 voice Synclavier II as an example. It it has the
stereo option voices, it's not like you are getting 16 voices free on
top of first 16 voices, it's just an extra
output channel for the same 16 oscillators, but routed through a
2-channel (stereo) analog filter card instead of the 1-channel analog
filter (this part of it, the analog filter only, is the exact same sound,
and this is crucial for the sound of the voices, it gives them that Memorymoog growl on the low
end and a very smooth top end).
You can think of it as if it were a 16 channel mixer that has a mono
output, just one jack there. It has one microphone plugged into each
input channel, for a total of 16 microphones
in all, the relative volume levels for each can be adjusted, and those
are mixed to one channel, so it is mono.
Making it a stereo
output mixer a panning control on each channel strip and two jacks for the output instead doesn't get you 16 more microphones or 16 more
channels, it's just a panning control on each existing channel and a
second output so it can be routed to one output, the other output, or anywhere in
between.
Question 26: I would like to
purchase one of your Synclavier systems. I'm coming to America for a
vacation soon and I can come to Los Angeles and pick it up so I don't
have to pay for shipping.
Answer: You can certainly
collect it in person and save a lot of company time here by doing so,
but what you can't do is ship it to where it has to go as well as
Synhouse does. No one can.
A Synclavier II or Synclavier can't just be checked as airline baggage.
It would be destroyed if checked as airline baggage. Not to mention
excess baggage fees, and that there are at least two pieces of the
system that would exceed the maximum baggage size and weight limits.
This isn't the way to go.
This is delicate electronic instrumentation equipment that requires
expertise to ship. A Synclavier II mini-system packed the Synhouse way
can be as little as 76 kg, but it is really delicate. It can't just be
handed over as baggage on an airline or something like that, it would
be destroyed. The Synhouse special handing is a part of the cost,
unless you are local and can pick it up to bring on a very gentle car
ride.
Synhouse ships domestic US system orders by truck freight, while very
small export Synclavier II mini-systems sometimes go by economy air
freight, some small mini-systems and all big systems (several system
orders in the last ten years have been more than 680 kg/1,500 lbs) go
by economy ocean export. More than 70% of all Synhouse shipments since
2002 have been to Western Europe, so there is considerable shipping and
export documentation expertise here.
Question 27: I live in Brazil, but I have family in USA, so you can send to them and they'll send it to me.
Answer: See the answer to the previous question above.
There's almost no possibility it's cheaper, there is a 100% chance it
will be damaged (Synhouse has been repairing mis-shipped junk people
have bought on eBay since 2002), and a very, very low probability you
will want to pay for a service call to Brazil (it's barely once or
twice per year that anyone wants to pay for any work done outside Los
Angeles, though quite a lot of hardware has been shipped here for
repair, see the service page about that) to fix the damage that's been done.
The shipping prices paid for these systems are a combination of actual
shipping cost from the carrier*, packing labor, packing materials, and
driving on this end.
Just because it's done by the best, it doesn't mean it has to be
expensive. For a reference price, as of December 2018, the last
Synclavier II mini-system shipped to Europe, the client wanted it
shipped by air and it cost him exactly $787.66, including all packing
labor, packing materials, and driving on this end.
But it's your choice and Synhouse will ship it anywhere you like.
*Synhouse gets considerable discounts not offered to one-time shippers calling out of the phone book, not to mention that Synhouse Multimedia Corporation
is a known and federally recognized shipper since the terrorists
attacked in 2001, and Synhouse deferred air shipments can ride in extra
available cargo space on passenger airlines, which can result in even
more money saved because it's unused/unsold space, and your shipments may not
ride in passenger aircraft because they haven't been carrying your
shipments for twenty years, just two of the nice benefits of being in
the internation mail order business for 28+ years (as of December 2018)
and counting.
Question 28: Does the
Synclavier have 96 voices that can do everything, sampling and FM and
DTD, so if you use 48 voices for FM, you only have 48 voices left for
DTD?
Answer: There are four basic
types of sound generation devices and audio outputs on NED systems, and
at least a few subtypes and revisions of each. There are some
combinations between them used at certain times due to the flexibility
and expansive nature of the NED platform. Each sound generation device
can play the audio program material from a variety of data sources or
media, and the files themselves can be stored on a variety of media
with different file types:
1)
Hardware: Synclavier II synthesizer voices (also supplied as an option
in some later NED systems such as the PSS, PSMT, PST, and 9600)
Hardware variations: original type (mono) and stereo (various revisions
of each, including the SS6 Stereo Option and the later SS7, which was
first put into the original mono bins with up to two 10-slot backplanes
for 20 slots maximum and SAM adapters putting two SS7 cards into a
single slot intended for an SS5 card, and later the SS7X put directly
into bins with a single 24-slot stereo backplane)
Number of voices/channels: 8, 16, 24, or 32 voice systems are common,
though NED specified 128 voices as the upper limit for system
polyphony, any number of voices over 32 would have a progressively
higher combined noise floor and latency in the upper voices due to the
SS4=SS4=SS4=SS4=next bin=SS4=SS4=SS4=SS4, etc. daisy chaining control
method (which was not employed in 64 voice and 96 voice polyphonic
sampling systems that have each bin controlled directly from a
dedicated interface card)
Type of sound generated: synthesized timbres, Resynthesis timbres
Sounds created by: user programming or from libraries
Sounds played directly from: core computer memory
Files stored on: floppy drive, Winchester drive, Kennedy tape drive
2)
Hardware: Sample-to-Disk module (also known as the ADX/DAX Conversion Unit) with D66 computer interface cards
Hardware variations: original Sample-to-Disk option for the Synclavier
II (also known as mono sampling, which leads to a lot of confusion),
various revisions of each card in the module and computer bin
Number of voices/channels: 1
Type of sound generated: sampled sounds with sampling rates from 7.5 kHz up to 50 kHz
Sounds created by: user sampling, from libraries, or by user programmed
computation of sine waves, waveforms with known harmonic content,
impulse trains, and random white noise, all can be processed with ring
modulation, pass band filters, stop band filters, comb filters, and by
creating filters through spectral manipulation
Sounds played directly from: Winchester drive through small external RAM buffer
Files stored on: floppy drive, Winchester drive, Kennedy tape drive, optical drive, magneto-optical drive
File type: sound files
3)
Hardware: Synclavier polyphonic sampling voices
Hardware variations: original type panning PSV cards (Polyphonic
Sampling Voice cards) and later standard (panning) DDV voices or 3200
(mono) voices, and various revisions of each
Number of voices/channels: 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, or 32 voices are
possible per poly bin, with up to three bins in a single system to make
a maximum of 96 voices both right and left
Type of sound generated: sampled sounds with sampling rates up to 100
kHz stereo (samples can be played back at up to 400 kHz stereo)
Sounds created by: user sampling, from libraries, transferred in from
Direct-to-Disk audio tracks using cue editing and the Transfer to Poly
function, or by user programmed computation of sine waves, waveforms
with known harmonic content, impulse trains, and random white noise,
all can be processed with ring modulation, pass band filters, stop band
filters, comb filters, and by creating filters through spectral
manipulation
Sounds played directly from: dedicated polyphonic sampling RAM
Files stored on: floppy drive, Winchester drive, Kennedy tape drive, optical drive, magneto-optical drive
File type: sound files
4)
Hardware: Direct-to-Disk voices
Hardware variations: original type panning DDV cards and later mono cards (various revisions of each)
Number of voices/channels: 4, 8, 12, or 16 tracks both right and left
are possible per Direct-to-Disk machine, an unlimited number of
machines can be synchronized through SMPTE, VITC, MIDI, or other system
clocks
Type of sound generated: live audio recorded Direct-to-Disk, other disk
recorded or sampled sounds, all with sampling rates up to 100 kHz
Sounds created by: direct user recording, transferred in (sample rate
converted as necessary through the DSP70 option) from sound effects
libraries on optical or magneto-optical disk, transferred in from
Winchester, optical, or magneto-optical disk via the Synclavier
polyphonic sampling RAM
UDIO can be added for one or two channel AES/EBU digital input and output
Sounds played directly from: battery of dedicated Winchester drives, with 1, 2, or 4 tracks per drive
Files stored on: initially recorded on battery of dedicated Winchester
drives, recorded tracks can be backed up with two types of NED tape
backup drives or other SCSI devices, by using cue editing, can be
transferred to optical or magneto-optical drive or transferred to
Synclavier poly RAM to be stored on floppy, Winchester, Kennedy tape,
optical, or magneto-optical drives
File type: DTD file, cues may be saved to the polyphonic sampling bin and Winchester drive as sound files
It is possible for a single system to have all four types of sound output hardware.
======================================================================
Notice:
All of the writing on this page is copyright Synhouse Multimedia Corporation 1999-2019.
No permission is granted for use of any part of this writing in any way whatsoever.
Do not copy it, do not share it, do not post it online, do not distribute it in any way.
======================================================================
E-mail inquiries to
