Misynformation: synth reviews in the post-truth world

The term post-truth (or post-fact) was coined by Steve Tesich in the early 1990s in his essay The Nation. It has been widely used in political sphere, denoting a situation where not the factual details matter. Instead, one appeals to emotions, and there is, as a key characteristic, rejection of factual comebacks.

One would not expect to see the same shift from facts to a post-factual discourse in something as technological and inherently objective as the world of engineering specifications for electronics and within that, electronic instruments.

However, a recent trend is that not only manufacturers, but also reputable synth technology-related media have shifted to a surprisingly post-factual style.

Marketing was always about overstatements, let's face it. Whether that comes from the manufacturer or secondary forums that have a vested interest in promoting / selling the products, is not a key distinction.  They are information sources for prospective buyers / users, therefore they all have quite a responsibility.

However, one could see the intentional eroding of even fundamental instrument categories, mechanically repeated by thought-to-be technically informed and reputable media. One could see sensationalist headlines along the lines of "is this the future of...?" when they reviewed products with features running more than a decade behind the times.

It seems in synth world, too, the increasing  hype and sometimes desperate overcompensation from some manufacturers, in an attempt to hide the lack of actual ideas, is being parroted by even specialist media without even a quick comparative look at specifications.

Countless social media debates then promptly denaturate into typical post-factual discourse: if some come with an objective point based on glaring technical facts in the product specification or its real-life use, such comments are attracting the "fake news" type instant dismissal.

It is rather interesting to see this phenomenon in the sphere of electronic music technology.

Examples abound... but a note in advance: many terms here are considered to be known based on long-standing, even historic, definitions. To use analogy based on the Blackadder comedy series of yesteryear, Baldrick's hilarious "cat = not a dog" definition does not detail what a dog is, if latter is well-defined and well-knownm and 2 seconds in Google can provide it :)... But back to a (slightly) more serious look of sometimes hilarious synth reviews...

Before going to glaring and monstrous examples of media mis-stating fundamental aspects of new products, a more subtle (and in need of erudition) case is that of the recently released and exciting Mostro FM synth.

Even SynthAnatomy chose a headline that is shockingly unaware of signal processing fundamentals and of actual synthesizer history, seeing more than 2 FM operators as "DX7 backstory" that the reviewed product has none of.

Why can any DSP person say this is shocking lack of awareness of signal processing fundamentals? Well, the "DX7 backstory" (or lack of, in this case) is not actually a DX7 backstory.

It is fundamental mathematical reason stemming from Dr. Chowning's revolutionary paper on FM synthesis. DX7 did not chose to have more than 2 operators on a whim, but because it is necessary for sufficiently complex audio spectra.

Not having more than 2 operators in an FM synth is not a plus... for very fundamental reasons. Again, the more than 2 operator FM synthesis is not a "DX7 back story", it is fundamental need for complex spectral changes in FM synthesis.

One can ask, how can such reputable synth media make such headlines and completely side-step not only mathematical but also synth history facts?

Regardless of subjective preferences for brands, a notable misinformation case was that of Yamaha Montage. It was accurately marketed as a synthesizer, not as a workstation, by Yamaha. However, countless very reputable and usually serious/informed media wrote about it as "flagship workstation"  or "best workstation synth", to quote just a few examples.

This got even more tragicomical when its cut-down repackaged version, the MODX, was written about even by SynthAnatomy as "workstation".

It was and remains factually and fundamentally incorrect to categorise it as a workstation, kudos for even Yamaha accurately stating the correct category for these instruments.

One of the very few serious synth and studio technology reviewers that emphasised from the start the key difference was, as usual, Sound On Sound, who have re-stated several times the distinction.

The post-factual furore was at full swing in social media, from YouTube to Facebook groups and so on. Correcting this huge misnomer attracted endless subjective furore, exactly as certain factually wrong or self-contradicting political tweets or articles do...

This particular example is merely about overcompensation for long-established pre-existing features lacking in these products, whilst those features are actually central to the instrument category definitions themselves...

However, similar eloquent cases can be found when manufacturer over-uses the word "new" - and even reputable media mechanically repeats this, proving the fact that even simple comparative look at specifications, informed by instrument and technology history, has not been done.

Such case is the very recent launch of Roland's Fantom workstation.

The fact, that the manufacturer hyped the product, is understandable and forgivable to an extent. However, in the era of post-factual media, it is more important to note how automatically the factually incorrect claims have been repeated by even serious synth review sites and retailers.

Andertons are asking: is this the future of workstations?...  A simple look at the specs, even before getting hands on with the new product, would have eminently told one that this is the past of workstations, if one considers e.g. synth engines and sampler parts. Why not be honest about the novel UI and the performance capabilities, instead of putting "new" where there is none - and even old feature is more limited.

Others even labeled it "the ultimate workstation", again forgetting the simple fact that it has series of missing features and considerably more limited or lower-performance features compared to long before existed workstations out there. Others introduce it as "all new" in their first sentence, whilst is has many merely repackaged and long before existed elements and subsystems.

Not only it repackages long-existed synth engines (e.g. from XV family of synths), but it actually lacks key features that existed for long time in other synth workstations with several times higher specifications.

For example, the sampling ability is shockingly limited both in functionality and capability, if one does a very quick comparison with e.g. the long-existed Kronos. Even OASYS had several times more synth engines integrated with a single user interface front-end.

The "seamless transitions" do not exist for Fantom programs and effects, even the review video has clear and not seamless transitions... They only and only work for the so-called scenes, whilst other long-existed workstations can make seamless transitions between programs, combinations of programs, with entire effect chain transitions.

The problem is not that manufacturer, repackaging pre-existing elements into a new product, the real problem is the overstating the "novelty" element.

The bigger problem is how end users can be subjected to many synth reviews and demos that, without basic specification checks, repeat falsehoods or hype the product without realising that long before existed products had the same, and better performing features.

In the sphere of social psychology, it would be quite an interesting topic to dig deeper into this trend, where post-factual rhetoric is permeating even formerly technical facts-based discourse.

Within the world of synths, as end users or technology aficionados, one has to wonder how we can actually end up here.

There seems to be a strong correlation between endlessly repackaged pre-existing technology and the hype overstating novelty, even when it is glaringly missing in specifications - let alone in terms of factual synthesizer history. 

This may exacerbate over time, and social media with typical post-factual treatment of objective comments is making it increasingly easier to drown out factual discourse.

As the late Umberto Eco postulated, in the hyper-real world fakes can seem more real than the real thing. And that seems to go for synth review claims, too.

New Yamaha MODX - an FM synthesizer Groundhog Day

Photo from GearNews

As very recently "leaked", Yamaha is releasing a new digital synth at a surprisingly attractive price point. The MODX is essentially a cut-down cheaper version of the Montage two-engine synth from a few years ago.

It is, once again, an FM + AWM2 synth that, as a powerful combination, we could get used to since the late 1980s when SY-77 demonstrated the capabilities of the combo.

Yamaha did not call the Montage a workstation, as it really wasn't one - but its trimmed version MODX is now being called a workstation. Well, Yamaha called even the Genos, an arranger on steroids, a workstation... Since Ensoniq and Korg long ago have established the very definition of what a synth workstation is, we can  abandon any and all hope of Yamaha respecting fundamental instrument categories.

While this may be an intentional overstating to mask the glaring stagnation (in terms of lack of actual synth innovation), it is all the more audacious when we look at the leaked specs of the MODX.

What is very telling again is what Yamaha has not done in the MODX.

The FM engine is still a repeat of the usual 8-operator affair - which is an FS1R cut in half. Actually, much less than half.

FS1R, the supreme FM monster from almost two decades ago, had 16 operators - but they were also of voiced and unvoiced types. Add formant filters and the ability to sequence formant movements, to create absolutely unique sounds.

Just to be superbly annoying, it was rapidly discontinued by Yamaha - a great role in this was played by Yamaha's shocking inability to see the potential everybody raved about. Thus they never even provided software tools that could enable the user and allow one to capitalise on the unparalleled and truly novel capabilities inside the box - only a freeware (hobbyist-created) app exists. The customised SoundDiver could not access the formant sequencing capabilities at all, but at least presented the thousands of parameters in some usable form.

Then there was also the EX5/EX7 - with their multi-engine combination, which even today can blow a sound designer's socks off. All the more remarkable, as we have had since then the OASYS and Kronos from Korg, as multi-engine synths.

In 2018, MODX, with all the hype and "leaking" of an "exciting" new FM synth, it begs a few questions.

What is Yamaha doing three years after Montage, and almost two decades after FS1R, in their R&D labs? Especially as MODX is not only a repeat of an earlier synth engine combo, but it still represents a vast step back from what their earlier synths could do.

With touch screen and outboard software that is possible nowadays, considering the many years that have gone past since the arrival of this dual synth engine, is there any interest whatsoever in Yamaha to give not just performers but synthesists / sound designers abilities that, no pun intended, sound like they are dated 2018? At least 2001 please?

Yes, sample storage has been increased and we can bet that Yamaha sound designers have created (on top of what Montage has) lots of superb presets. We can bet the quality of the AWM2 section is top notch.

However, while all too busy with blurring of very well-defined and long-established lines between product categories, the absolute lack of innovative thinking is depressing (if we discount the so-called superknob from Montage, present also on MODX - but that is merely an element of the user interface).

From business perspective, it is understandable, if one can release the same thing over and over again, and it sells. MODX will sell extremely well probably, as it is very attractively priced for what is under the bonnet.

Yes, it seems to be a powerful FM+AWM2 combo, but we can't even say it is state of the art. It is not even a repeat of 2001, with AWM2 added to it.

Frankly, it is hard to imagine what an FM engine from the FS1R could do when combined with the sample-based engine nowadays, considering what it was capable of on its own. Imagine that with touch screen and a proper software to leverage the formant sequencing.

We are stuck in a Yamaha groundhog day - not only MODX repeats essentially a dual synth engine for the Nth time, but it also repeats just one metaphoric day of the timeline - i.e. we cannot even go back further in time, in order to resurrect much more potent Yamaha engines of the past.