If the X3A file is all you have, you can use the Melas Waveform Editor to edit it and split it to several smaller libraries.

http://www.jmelas.gr/motif/wave.php

Or you can ask someone who already got the Melas Waveform Editor to do it for you...

Actually, you'll want to get the the Melas Waveform Editor for the MONTAGE

http://www.jmelas.gr/montage/wave.php

My bad, I definitely misread that, as in having Motif previously, not the Montage. Gah...

Even if the Montage ALL file would have fit into MODX, the MODX reference manual shows that X7A files are not supported by MODX (regardless of contents).

Seems like Montage users should be saving X7A files along with X7U and X7L when doing backups in case they need to migrate over to a MODX.

Even so, I suppose (theoretically, although perhaps rare) one could stuff an X7U or X7L with more samples than fit in 1GB. In which case, selective load would be nice without having to purchase a 3rd party utility.

Ok thanks guys, I'll grab the Montage version, can always upgrade to a Montage after I confirm the MODX will do what I need as a midi controller.

Seems like Montage users should be saving X7A files along with X7U and X7L when doing backups in case they need to migrate over to a MODX.

Point of Order: While the MODX can read MONTAGE .X7U (USER) and .X7L (LIBRARY) Files, it cannot Load a MONTAGE .X7A (BACKUP) File... only another MONTAGE can read a .X7A File.

If you own both a MODX and a MONTAGE... the later product (MODX) can read the User and Library File of the earlier product (MONTAGE).
A MONTAGE BACKUP File can only be read by another MONTAGE.
A MODX BACKUP File can only be read by another MODX.

SOUNDMONDO “Captures” are interchangeable between the instruments.

Your point of order was exactly what I outlined. I'm saying that when you save backups - save X7L and X7U at the same time (for Montage) -- even if you don't have a MODX -- just in case you need to use a MODX -- when otherwise, during the backup, you weren't thinking you'd need to move over to a MODX.

This would help "catch" cases where someone decides to dump their Montage in favor of a MODX -- or show up at a gig and the backline gives them a MODX instead of Montage. Add the extra steps back to be prepared for all use cases.

Even if the Montage ALL file would have fit into MODX

... this was a hypothetical of the waveform usage one would save from the "All" as a way to frame the equiv. action of loading one-by-one all X7L backups and X7U. I explained X7A doesn't load into MODX.

Sooo... bought the editor, then found, it won't let me copy and paste from my old montage file because it says its a different version :-( may be a waste of $100aud ?

For anyone interested, heres the reply from John Melas. I hope in future you can copy and past from MODX to Montage file or vice versa. But there is a workaround, although its kind of messy. I've abandoned the idea of deleted waveforms etc from my Montage file and decided to reprogram my covers band sounds and buy some of the banks from Easysounds to beef up the synth side of the MODX.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed currently Montage Waveform Editor does not support converting Performances from different file versions.
What you can do is use Waveform Editor to edit your Montage file: you can remove unsused (Edit->Remove Usused Waveforms)
or unwanted Waveforms to make it loadable on your MODX! Once you load on your MODX and save it you can edit it further
as a MODX again using Montage Waveform Editor!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards
Scott

I really really think it's a total catastrophic commercial business failure that all you great faithful Motif/Montage/modx owners have to buy a separate pixie old fashion program from a tiny one-man-company in order to be able to exchange data between the individual high-end expensive Yamaha synths and to edit the synth library files. YAMAHA: Come on, how low can you simply go?? -it's totally straight-forward easy-peacy programming. This kind of ulitity software could be programmed within a couple of weeks, using the Qt or JUCE cross-platform development environments. And how many software programmers have you got in your synthesizer development????? -It's totally ridiculous. YAMAHA you need to wake up -or the your market share will slowly vanish in the future.YAMAHA: ITS A TOTALLY MUST THAT YOU WILL START PROVIDING A SIMPLE UTILITY PROGRAM TO ALLOW TO EXCHANGE AND MANIPULATE LIBS BETWEEN YOU HIGH-END COMPATIBLE SYNTHS -OTHERWISE YOU ARE SERIOUSLY FAILING ALL YOUR FAITHFUL CUSTOMERS.

Best Regards
Senior Software Developer
Thomas Heder, Aalborg, Denmark

Perhaps less user application software devs now than before.

In past generations: although still the 3rd party tools were offered and arguably needed for certain operations - at least before there were editors made available, from Yamaha direct, which was something that could have been leveraged. Now, except for a more simplistic "helper" app (Connect), there is no platform to leverage as an editor of any sort.

Outsourcing has increased. The sampler "software" (firmware inside Motif XF) has been "outsourced" to 3rd party software. Sequencer - the same. PC software editors have been mothballed. Seems to indicate a smaller team that can handle only a smaller "shim" type utility.

As a user, as long as the software works - I'm not so concerned if it comes from Yamaha directly or 3rd parties. I do wish there wasn't an upcharge for these which just means I ("waste"/ ) spend time writing software for myself -- which doesn't help anyone else.

The positive spin would be that users who do not want to use these features can lower their TCO by not purchasing the upcharge tools and the power users can elect to get those if they want those features. That would also mean that the keyboard price would reflect a loss of overall tools and features. I'm not sure that happened - but this is a matter of interpretation.

I'm mostly agreeing here with your message (if that wasn't clear).