"Flow Motion FM Synth is a virtual instrument that combines the best elements of FM (frequency modulation) and analog-style subtractive synthesis in one powerful instrument. Design deep basses, screaming leads, rich pads and growling FX with this hybrid FM synth, featuring a 16-step snapshot sequencer, rich presets, and an intuitive graphic interface that makes FM synthesis playful and easy.
The Flow screen eases your way into FM synthesis, with a uniquely designed graphic FM modulation matrix that connects four powerful mono/polyphonic oscillators with independent waveform and pan controls. You can easily modify assignments between the oscillators, using four independent floating LFO/envelope modulators with intuitive drag-and-drop manipulation.
The Motion screen lets you further control filters, amplitude, EQ and FX in a "traditional" subtractive way, for added power and flexibility.
The 16-step snapshot sequencer enables you to easily capture 16 different states of the synth and switch between them in real time. With 16 recallable snapshots per patch, you can quickly create sequences on the fly and in the flow."
- Hybrid FM synth combining FM and subtractive synthesis
- Intuitive graphic FM modulation matrix with instant visual feedback
- 1000+ strong preset library, including exclusive artist presets
- 4 high-resolution oscillators
- 4 flexible LFOs and envelope modulators
- 16-step snapshot sequencer: sequence up to 16 recallable snapshots per patch
- Built-in note sequencer/arpeggiator
- State-of-the-art studio-quality FX
- Use as standalone instrument or plugin, in the studio or live
- NKS-ready
I think the UI is quite appealing to folks like me who find FM synthesis permanently confusing. But then I listened to some demos and realised yet again that I really don’t like FM synthesis. I do like the sound of Bazille mind, but that’s the most confusing of the lot.
I like all forms of synthesis, at this point if I HAD to choose a favorite it would be good old analog subtractive, but they all have strengths - and weaknesses.
FM was developed (old history I know) because many folks have become frustrated with the limitations of subtractive synthesis - one could not remove partials with any real accuracy, you started with some waveform and you could apply filters.
The real goal was computationally efficient additive synthesis - good luck with that, I fear it is a conflict of terms. Dr. Chowning, (among others) figured out that they could create arbitrarily complex waveforms with minimal computing power through modulation.
FM provided a more predictable (not really the right word) output than AM, or maybe just a more pleasing output? We all know AM as the ring modulator, which can create some pretty cool sounds, but musical usefulness is a little limited. Phase modulation was another approach, although it is so similar to FM that many don't make a distinction.
Old Guy Time!
Back in the day, think early 1980s, there was an internet, but there was no world wide web. The barrier to entry was sufficiently challenging that if you were there people assumed you were probably ok. And they would talk to you. This led to some fascinating conversations!
Dr. Chowning was at one of the west coast universities at the time, I'm pretty sure it was Stanford, possibly even CCRMA if it existed back then (wow does my memory have holes!) And he was perfectly willing to chat with me, and probably anyone else that found his email address (back then one used "bang" notation - how many remember that?)
Unfortunately the entire conversation is saved to a 5.25 inch Commodore 64 floppy, which I'm sure I still have, but could not locate even if I had a machine to read it. So I'll paraphrase<G>.
Essentially he managed to get me to think of FM as just a more complex waveform, and that was the starting point, after which you still applied filters and envelope generators and the like. The benefit was simply a more complex waveform without the need for tons of expensive hardware.
Once I got my head around that I became somewhat conversant with the TX-81z, and later FM-7 (proud - who am I kidding, I couldn't afford one - to say I never owned a DX7, although someone eventually gave me a TX7 which is collecting dust.)
It is still nowhere near as simple as subtractive or additive synthesis. Heck, even physical modelling (a la Tassman) is a little easier to grasp. But as long as I don't get all worked up about which carrier, which modulator, and what ratio I'm fine. I will futz with those parameters until I get something interesting. Not a whole lot different than twiddling the knobs on my ARP 2600 when you think about it.
Not sure if that breathes new life into FM for anyone, but it did for me.
Aside - at some point I purchased a Lexicon LXP-1, and later the LXP-5. Really pretty good budget DSPs, and I still have them in the rack, but I don't use them often. Anyway, once I had both of them I started hunting for an MRC, which was their hardware controller (baby sibling to the LARC). It is very cool, and still sits atop my keyboard as a MIDI controller. One of the REALLY cool features in the original firmware is a mode where it will control a DX-7 or TX-7 with terms that make sense to the rest of us. That feature disappeared when the updated the firmware to support two-way communications, I've swapped those chips several times!
Trivia - Dr. Chowning was first a composer and second a researcher. Something about necessity and mothers???
Interesting stuff, Bill - tragic to lose things like that conversation to data formats, isn't it?
However the biggie for me is by and large I just don't like the sound of FM, so all else is moot. A few weeks ago I was fiddling around with the new version of the Arturia Synclavier - just fumbling really - pretty much hating every noise I got out of it, which clarified my thinking. That hard distinctive FM sound is just not pleasing to me. Now I accept it is good at things like bells, and I've occasionally wanted a classic FM sound in something, but it has been few and far between - and owning FM8, Bazille and the Synclavier I feel very well covered for appropriate presets and tweaking the ADSR. Oh, and actually I like a bit of fairly subtle FM in Avenger - its not full blown FM synthesis, but that tone - and in Omni too - is generally more pleasing to me than the full blown kind as found in the Synclavier, or indeed Flow Motion. Analogue with a digital edge, rather than pure digital perhaps.
Which sort of drags it back on topic. The big appeal of Flow Motion to me is this funky interface. Never mind the colour scheme, following what looks like a flow chart is sort of appealing, makes sense and might encourage me to experiment more... except I know I'd hate the sounds by and large, so little point for me.
Hey, if you do not like the sound of FM then you do not like the sound of FM. That makes the rest of the conversation somewhat academic<G>!
I love the Synclavier, and I've grown to really like FM-8. So when I need something that sounds like "that" I too am well covered.
FWIW, I don't think FM has a sound, so to speak, but I think the vast majority of folks that designed sounds for FM synthesizers tended towards those things that are either easy to do, or unique to FM. So it developed a reputation of sounding like "that". I might be wrong.
One more bit of trivia - while it wasn't until Yamaha made a big splash that FM became a buzzword, there were a lot of synthesizers that could do FM going all the way back to the early Moog and ARP modulars. Even the ARP 2600 could do FM.
Regarding the sound, all know is that whenever I muck around with it on pure FM synths, I get it with consummate ease - so I don't think its purely to do with preset design. It's a very distinctive and unpleasant hard timbre to me. I think its something that with skill you can manipulate into more pleasing results that play to FM's strengths.
