YamahaSynth.com Forums

This is the place to talk about all things related to Yamaha Synthesizers!
  1. Sladjan
  2. The Voice
  3. MONTAGE
  4. Friday, 30 June 2017
Ok, I have to ask this question.
Some 16 years ago when I owned the Motif ES, being my first yamaha keyboard (coming from Korg), I immediately realized, that the voice programmers used the aftertouch very very sparely. An a lot of acoustic instruments like woodwinds, brass or lead sounds, one would expect that aftertouch introduces some kind of vibrato. I had to waste the user memory for patches where the only difference to the factory ones was that I put aftertouch back. Now, so many years later, I see that there is still the same animosity towards the aftertouch. Why is this?
I cannot believe that the sound designers left the aftertouch function almost untouched. I find this really annoying. What's the point of having aftertouch on a keyboard if nothing is programmed to?
Responses (15)
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
You are right!
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
You have to hunt, but its there. Interesting that the Kontakt demo instruments all have some reaction to aftertouch. Organ does some vibrato. The strings you can alter the pitch depending on how hard you dig in (subtle) - for manual vibrato.

"Cello Duo", a Montage preset has aftertouch. There's probably a large heap that do - finding them all takes a while.

I haven't been a big fan of Yamaha's view of "sweet" meaning vibrato pre-applied. This goes further than "sweet" - but the labeling seems to give some insight to the affinity towards what I would argue is over-use of vibrato. I'd rather not have vibrato the default sound and take some gesture to make vibrato kick in. Could take the trumpet swell approach and transition between waveforms of no vibrato and various sampled rates and also use effect generated for other performances to save the resources (parts, elements, etc).

... as a side note: in terms of feature-set, channel aftertouch has been a feature of Yamaha synths for a while. Its use and application is straight-forward. It's also something that depends greatly on your playing style how and if aftertouch is invoked for everything you play (a heavy hand) or never (normally) invoked - a lighter touch.

So some may find an "over use" of aftertouch could ruin their experience by doing unexpected things. And certainly it's a multi-step process to first realize it may be aftertouch then to dig out the fact that it (AT) is or is not programmed.

... the original point I had in this message before the tangent was that because aftertouch is "old tech" - there's not as much priority to showcase it in new performances. Instead, preset programming focus should (and I think is) rightfully focused on new features such as the motion control/sequence features, effective use of scenes, and different methods to structure performances to morph/switch sounds using various controls.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 2
Bad Mister
Yamaha
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@ Jason
I haven't been a big fan of Yamaha's view of "sweet" meaning vibrato pre-applied. This goes further than "sweet" - but the labeling seems to give some insight to the affinity towards what I would argue is over-use of vibrato. I'd rather not have vibrato the default sound and take some gesture to make vibrato kick in. Could take the trumpet swell approach and transition between waveforms of no vibrato and various sampled rates and also use effect generated for other performances to save the resources (parts, elements, etc).
There are several examples of this in Factory Performances... Concert Flute, is one example, it begins with the Non-Vibrato Waveform and transitions to natural vibrato samples by morphing between active Elements 1, 2 and 3. This allows you to control when the vibrato is applied with a familiar MW gesture and even control the depth... compared to the application of the strict time of an LFO, the pre-recorded vibrato is more natural sounding, imho.
Montage, it's a synthesizer, you can change it.


Changing the physical controller assigned to any parameter is fairly painless once you're comfortable with navigation.
Because Aftertouch which is a 1-127 type control, much of what feels good to do with Aftertouch can be applied to either MW, FC, AsgnKnob, Super Knob... the heavy-handed folks would prefer (according to 'viewer mail') that we not burn into permanent ROM something as esoteric as AT Control. It is an acquired taste, and trust me, not enthusiastically appreciated by everyone. If you have acquired the taste, switching the assigned controller is not painful. This versus burning it into permanent memory is the 'King Solomon solution'...

There are certainly Factory Performances that utilize AT.

To change the physical controller:
From HOME
Press [EDIT]
Press [PART SELECT X] to view an individual Part's parameters
Press the lower [COMMON] button or touch "Common" in the lower left of the screen
Touch "Mod/Control" > "Control Assign"

Turn "Auto Select" On (green)
Move the currently assigned physical controller to recall everything assigned to it. Each DESTINATION box reveals how the controller is being applied.
For example, say you move the MW, and decide that a particular Destination needs to be remapped to Aftertouch.
Move the cursor to the Destination box so it's title is blue
Touch the "SOURCE" box to view a list of Controller options
Select "Aftertouch"

You can now adjust the Curve, Ratio, etc to tailor the response
Press [STORE] to write this to a User Performance
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Yes, it really is easy to add aftertouch as an additional controller to do what actually the MW does.
I'm just curious why Yamaha avoids to use AT on most of the patches. When there is a keyboard without aftertouch, people usually complain about that because the left hand is most often occupied with playing something on the left part of the keyboard, so the easiest way to introduce vibrato on a patch is by using AT.

Another thing, but not connected to the Aftertouch where I'm wondering is, why didn't Yamaha give us the new piano (CFX) and the new elec. pianos also in a single waveform. All the "older" pianos from previous models are presented in the ROM as separate waveforms for each velocity layer and also as a single waveform. The cfx piano with its 9 velocity level already exceed the structure of a single part. And then we have those new piano performances where half of the available parts is occupied for a single instrument! If the piano sample would be in the ROM also as a single waveform, one part would be more than enough to recreate what is now by (ab)using half of the available parts.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
CFX PopStudioGrand = 1 PART

The [CATEGORY SEARCH] allows to filter by "Single" - so it's easy to find what pianos use a single PART further filtering by main category=piano, sub category=acoustic.

I often use CFX PopStudioGrand when I want a 1-part CFX.

I think Yamaha has you covered already with this one. Both a simple mechanism for finding performances on your own - and also the target performance you were looking for.

It's nice that people have the option to add aftertouch to affect any kind of parameter they want available as a destination. If Yamaha picked one for them - we may see complaints about the wrong one.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@BM - glad some of the performances have a choice. My main beef (and it's not a huge one) with vibrato and Motif/Montage has been in the solo string category. In the past, only "fiddle" was a non-vibrato voice (pulling from the limited set of a single non-vibrato waveform). Violin 1 has a non-vibrato. However - Violin 2 (1st/2nd) do not. Cello, Viola, Arco Bass do not. I think when assembling the string options - there is a programming bias towards the vibrato sound which is why the more dry sound of non-vibrato strings is "under represented" (opinion).

Violin, with all of its different bow gestures, and expressive (different sounds) nature makes it a difficult instrument to pull off as a convincing solo instrument. What I've struggled with is being satisfied when a country tune calls for a violin sound. I can work perhaps more on the EQ to try to get a closer characteristic sound. Maybe add effects to try to get something closer. The waveforms themselves do not offer many choices as primarily the core is non-vibrato I'm after. In other words, I haven't exhausted all the options yet. Although I may end up investing in an alternative set of string samples to get a closer dry violin sound.

I think there is a general bias towards a certain sound - a vibrato=better philosophy. It's hard to put the kitchen sink into any product. Hopefully as memory size increases over time - more "flat" acoustic samples can be added to the internal set.

The tie-in to aftertouch is that non-vibrato, or otherwise "flat" waveforms lend themselves to use of controls to add the "gravy" (vibrato, etc).
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Jason wrote:
I think Yamaha has you covered already with this one. Both a simple mechanism for finding performances on your own - and also the target performance you were looking for.


Look, I don't have any intellectual problems understanding the Montage structure and system. I didn't ask for help on finding single part performances. I appreciate help when I ask for it, but you are sometimes really overdoing this. The single part pianos do not sound the same as those first multipart piano performances and the solution would be very simple if there would be a single waveform covering all the velocity layers. Please, prove me wrong, but the Montage is the only keyboard which is unable to produce a single instrument on a single part because the number of velocity waveforms it contains, exceeds the number of elements. A similar problem exist with one brass performance using new waveforms where doits and falls are put on a second and third part. I am just telling that the old piano waveforms already offer single waveforms for multiple velocity layers. It is already there. So, why not for the CFX piano.
Yamahas multisample format allows you to put velocity layered samples into one single waveform. I'd like if they would offer the new samples also in this form so that a brass or piano doesn't occupy 80% of the available parts. And yes, I know that there are single part brass performances. Yes, they are green colored.

Jason wrote:It's nice that people have the option to add aftertouch to affect any kind of parameter they want available as a destination. If Yamaha picked one for them - we may see complaints about the wrong one.


Excuse me, can you point me to a forum entry somewhere on the internet where a user complains about aftertouch introducing a vibrato on a synth lead or guitar patch????? Honestly Jason, don't understand me wrong, I really do appreciate the help you offer here for people, but sometimes your arguments are really ridiculous. Do you really think that people would complain about the fact that yamaha picked the "wrong" parameter to be controlled by aftertouch, but you somehow don't have the same concern about what is programmed to the Superknob?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Embedded in your secondary question regarding the CFX pianos was a complaint about how the CFX related performances took up too many PARTs and you were looking for a single-PART CFX that didn't waste all the PARTs you would otherwise use for other content. I thought pointing out an existing CFX sample based preset which used a single PART would help. Apparently it does not. I also "went the extra mile" to highlight how one (not only you, but anyone reading) how to filter the category search in order to more easily find content. I rarely use this feature so it was a good reminder for even myself.

That single PART versions of multi-PART performances sound different is another discussion altogether. During Blake's tutorials he mentions if you want the nuance and are doing a piano solo gig - then load up the multi-PART CFX Concert performance. If you're playing a piano at a gig where you're sitting buried in the mix - then a single PART piano sounds great and the nuance is lost there.

I do understand there are situations where you may want both - nuance and economy. This wasn't your original request exactly - but this will have to be addressed by Yamaha. It's a slightly different spin on your initial request or, at least, better articulated what you're after.

People complain about all kinds of things. They complain about getting help. They complain about not getting help. There's opposing complaints out there with opposite goals. I don't judge these - people have different goals.

There was a thread about someone complaining about the lack of performances with drum beats like many of the Motif XF performances (performances using ARPs). Turns out there's 576 performances featuring ARPs and over 1,000 individual ARPs showcased. That's not a whole lot considering how many preset performances there are (2,036) - but still a sizable chunk. It's not dead easy to search by controller (aftertouch) and there's not a guide of performances so you can look up by controllers used either. So this makes it difficult to quickly find. That's its own issue.

So this "there aren't any aftertouch" part of your thread reminded me of that. I could dig up the script I used to fish out parameters from the bulk dump - with some modification, this would give me a list of aftertouch performances. It will be some number. I could post up a list of performances that match. Although the motivation would be to help - I may get negative feedback. That's fine - I'm resilient and will not take the bait to go negative in response.

I value your opinion - even that you disagree with some of the points I make. That's what's so great about opinions - you can take them or leave them.

As far as aftertouch complaints. Mainly about the "wrong" kind of aftertouch complaining about no polyphonic AT keybed. People complain about aftertouch flooding their MIDI recordings and want to turn it off altogether. It's difficult to find a feature without some form of complaint. PAC seems like it's safe from complaints - everyone seems to enjoy the increased warmth/fidelity of Montage vs. previous offerings. Superknob is a different beast since you have to be intentional in order to invoke it. Aftertouch often is invoked as a consequence of just normal playing - which is why the DAW folks like to turn it off. Even when assigning sources - it's mildly annoying that aftertouch will fire when "Auto Select" is enabled unless aftertouch itself is disabled. The remedy is to audition changes (strike keys) softer. Point being is that they relate differently to playing. Aftertouch is in the line of fire of being invoked for everything you play on-keyboard while superknob is an elective gesture.

I wasn't trying to build a very strong theory there - so there's no need to try to defend a soft statement like "we may see complaints". It was more of the thought that it is hard to please everyone because there are different goals out there.

I'm not personally against having more performances with aftertouch as an included control. Once you carry this out, you need to bring ribbon controller along. As it's difficult to imagine which controller is more important. "No controller left behind". At some point we may run out of 16 destinations per PART - but there's still room to assign in lots of performances. Ribbon happens to be less controversial because, like Super Knob, it takes effort to invoke. It's not in the line of fire of everything played on the keybed. Some have noticed their palm invoking it while using the pitch/mod wheels - so it's in some form of line of fire. Using the "reset" version of ribbon would alleviate that.

Our workflows are different which is why we may differ in how we view the aftertouch world. I think this difference is fine - and would be happy if more of the userbase needs more aftertouch in their preset performances and Yamaha takes on the work to change this. My workflow is that I build everything using presets as a skeleton. The closer they start to what I'm after, the better - that's a matter of luck - but I'm perfectly fine programming my way out of what they do not offer (that's why I tend to make requests for "you can't get there from here" type things). If I need to add aftertouch - kind of a bad example because I rarely use it - but if it was something I had to do, hypothetically, to every performance - then this would be fine. Already I happily deal with the EQ, level, effects, keyboard range, splits, even the note transposition - because sometimes I run out of keyboard room and have to use keys in the far upper/lower part of the keyboard which are transposed differently just to get in 5 or so notes and they are not available (not enough keys) if I use the original key (transposition). ... the list goes on. Since there's so much manual work in building everything I use - I come from a different bias. That's also why I'm OK with the hypothetical if I had to remove aftertouch from everything because it was much more pervasive.

Right now vibrato is invoked on the guitars using the mod wheel. I understand wanting to bring these controls to the fingers - I've been experimenting with this myself. If guitar performances did have aftertouch for vibrato - I would have a reason to complain (or be annoyed before programming this out). The sound of the vibrato on the guitars, in general, is not great. I like that I have to work to get a vibrato on these because I continue to choose "no vibrato" and this is much easier to accomplish as-is. Synths are a little different. Those would generally be fine with the extra control. I was dealing with Kontakt and the C3 organ was a little "silly" with vibrato added as an aftertouch control. I'm glad the organs are not programmed like this on Montage. It's easy enough to program out - but just a perspective using other products out there. I'm not on an island here - there are others who are not happy with the aftertouch choices of other manufacturers.

A challenge to find previous complaints about a feature seems to support keeping a feature the same more than than supporting change. That said, you do register a valid opinion here.

Although Yamaha can better go through the why CFX had to use 3 PARTs instead of 1 - I can perhaps address the 4th PART (keyoff). Although keybanks include note range and velocity - I'm not sure they have any facility for key-off vs. key-on. This is where XA is invoked so in order to have all the nuance of the CFX Concert - you're going to at least have a 2nd part to cover the key-off noises.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Jason wrote:
Although Yamaha can better go through the why CFX had to use 3 PARTs instead of 1 - I can perhaps address the 4th PART (keyoff). Although keybanks include note range and velocity - I'm not sure they have any facility for key-off vs. key-on. This is where XA is invoked so in order to have all the nuance of the CFX Concert - you're going to at least have a 2nd part to cover the key-off noises.


????????

Excuse me, what is exactly your point?

If the first element is occupied by a waveform which contains all the velocity layers, you still have 7 (SEVEN) elements for the rest of your piano patch. There is no need to put the key-off waveform into the first element because you have seven elements left.

Do you understand the difference between the second element and second part????

Once again:
Take a Korg Kronos, or a Roland or a Kurzweil.
Their best piano patch available is offered to the user in one single patch. Not four patches. That's the point I'm trying to make. On a Korg or Kurzweil when I select the best piano they offer, I still have 15 parts for my other needs. On the Montage and their 8 part structure I don't have 7 parts left, I barely have the half of it. That is disastrous for 2017.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
You're right - XA works on elements so there's no need to, except for other global settings that may be a mismatch, to split out something solely for XA control. My mistake.

The Korg takes a slightly different approach on many different levels. To some extent - different architecture choices I like the "Korg way" better. I'm not sure if this has been remedied - but I had concerns about CPU utilization being a limiting factor in the Korg model where some engines would take more resources and therefore limit what you could and could not combine.

If other keyboards are able to serve an economy of resources and deliver an experience that matches quality of result of Yamaha - which, as you've indicated, seems to spend more resources to present premium single-instrument sounds - then there may be something to look at from a competitive disadvantage. Without a Korg, it's difficult for me to see what the resource utilization is exactly - but I'll take it at face value that their premium pianos only consume a single "PART" equivalent (timbre) and that the CPU resources do not impose any limit on adding more timbres (this may not be a "thing" anymore - I don't know if SGX was the heavy hitter in this department - my experience here is limited). I think Kurzweil is more "flat" like a Yamaha (not concerned with CPU utilization). I don't know how those pianos work, but will trust they only take up a single zone.

It is true that one stumbling block for some Montage users is the concept of multi-zone instruments. They do provide a more rich sound, but have been shown to cause some problems on a few different fonts. It would be nice to have a more atomic/encapsulated structure where any instrument need not take up more than one zone - however that can be realized. This would at least "normalize" the workflow. "The new way" does come with a price tag of "burned PARTs" if you want to maintain the rich "part-hungry" instruments. I received flack for this "burned" term before, but I'm OK with reusing it despite the controversy.

On the flip side, I do like that you can see through the Montage almost clearly down to the bones. What makes it tick is pretty much laid out for you - so, although there is some, there is not a lot of mystery when wanting to tweak sounds. There is a lot of flexibility here and because things have not significantly changed from previous generations - there's lots of legacy knowledge (and content) that can be reused. Montage offers more than what the previous generation had (mostly - focused on the part/element story here - not on the sampler / sequencer one). So if I wasn't that limited before - I'm less limited now. Some of the changes necessary to encapsulate the architecture so less zones are used means losing some legacy and going a different direction. Some would see a down side to this. I'm not sure where I stand - because execution is a question mark. Sometimes when you ask your drummer to play bass - you get a mess - obviously someone who's never picked up a bass before. Sometimes you get Jaco Pastorius. I do think it makes total sense to aspire to your request - in some future generation to simplify the workflow (for DAW use - but also an elegant/deep solution for end-user synth programmers) and consume less resources.

I also believe - if your use, like mine, is performance - that the PART 1-8 for live play (keyboard responds to hands) and PART 9-16 for Memorex play (keyboard responds to MIDI - might be hands somewhere down the line, might not) - I believe this contributes to the squeeze. Certainly along the line of the "vs. Kronos" or "vs. Kurzweil (similar class)" story - there is not the same limitation there. So this can be a double whammy.

For now, if you need the resources - you're going to have to stick with performances that consume an amount of resources that fits your instrument requirement. So if you need 8 different instruments that are controlled directly with hands - then you'll be required to get 8 single-part instruments into Montage. That is if you're using presets. Since we both see that there's an opportunity for "element compression" (or compacting) - there may be cases where, assuming there was a mechanism to do it, you could take elements from one PART and throw them into unused slots of another PART. Even with tools/buttons/software to do this (the mechanism) - there's a lot of variables that makes it a unique determination if compacting can be done - primarily if the global PART settings are compatible with both sets of elements.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
For informational purposes - looks like Montage has 101 aftertouch assignments across 88 different performances. Some performances have multiple destinations for aftertouch which is where the 101 figure comes from.

Caveats: Below is a listing of presets from my keyboard that report using Aftertouch. Initially, I had some user performances mixed in and have deleted them for the statistics and below list - but I may have overlooked one. Also, I spot-checked a few to see if the script was working OK. Enough matched that I list them here. However, the method for pulling out the performance name was not "great" - hopefully the list does not contain errors. One stood out which I removed (Stereo GM Kit / these are drums) - didn't seem to fit and spot checking found it has no aftertouch assignment).

4.3% of the performances is not huge. However, there does seem to be coverage within a variety of different instrument types and musical styles.

The "--> #" is the number of destinations for each performance that have an aftertouch controller source.

CFX & Pad --> 1
CP80 & Pad --> 1
Rd & Pad --> 1
Early 80s DiscoPop --> 4
FM - What else --> 1
Midnight Funk --> 1
Toy EP --> 1
Clavi Amp Gallery --> 5
Clavi/Toy EP Duo --> 1
Flamenco Guitar --> 1
Fiesta Guitar --> 1
Orch Brass Tutti --> 1
Brassy Synth MW --> 2
Anemone Lead --> 1
Milk & Honey --> 1
Kool FM Disco Lead --> 1
DX Classix --> 1
Dreamy FM Keys --> 1
Schlager Weapon 4 --> 1
UnderWater Worlds --> 1
Funk Motion Pad --> 1
Praise Mr. 80 --> 1
Cloud Electric --> 1
Turn It On --> 1
Kool Dis Comp --> 1
Schlager Weapon 3 --> 1
Caramel Ice --> 1
Crumbler --> 1
Slow Fast --> 1
Kreuzberg Funk --> 2
FM Chillout --> 1
Bit Performer --> 1
Super Clavi 1 --> 1
Clean Noise --> 1
Classical AF1&2 --> 1
High Tension AF1&2 --> 1
Classical12Strings --> 1
Steel String AF1&2 --> 1
Old Strings AF1&2 --> 1
Two Acoustics 1 --> 1
Airy 12 AF1&2 --> 1
Wide 12 strings AF --> 1
DualCoilLeadWahFC2 --> 1
Active TRB --> 1
Passive BB AF1&2 --> 1
Vintage JB AF1&2 --> 1
5th Fuzz Bass --> 1
Violin Solo 2 AF1 --> 1
Viola Solo 2 AF1 --> 1
Cello Duo AF1 --> 1
ContrabassSolo2 AF --> 1
Medium Hall --> 1
Blown Bone Legato --> 1
French Horn 1 AF1 --> 1
FrenchHornSection1 --> 1
Accent mf-fall AF --> 1
Big Brass AF1&2 --> 1
Sforzando AF1&2 --> 1
Irish Pipe Legato --> 1
Woody Harp --> 1
Dirty Hook --> 1
Feeling --> 1
Early Lead --> 1
Mr. Finger --> 1
Mini Three --> 1
Eight --> 1
Dancy Saw Lead --> 1
Tekk Glide --> 1
Vicious Dogs --> 1
Cool Trance --> 1
Oracle --> 1
Talk --> 1
Tekno Attack AF1&2 --> 1
Corrado --> 1
Trancious Line --> 1
Noise FX --> 1
SEKAI-ISAN --> 1
Week End --> 1
Magnetics --> 1
Udu --> 1
Pungi --> 1
Shehnai 1 --> 1
Brass Section --> 2
Breakback Mountain --> 1
The Bitch AT AF1&2 --> 1
VariChord AT AF1&2 --> 1
Voxdance AT AF1&2 --> 1
String Sect Swell --> 4
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@ Sladjan, I believe the answer to your "why no single waveform" question can be found in the underlying architecture. As BM explained for MOXF (I believe for Montage its the same):

"A Waveform is a collection of individual samples. There can be a maximum of 256 individual samples in a Waveform. A Sample is defined by a Note Range and a Velocity Range. Why 256? There are 128 Keys (C-2 thru G8) each can hold two mono or one stereo Sample. Or you could stack samples vertically by Velocity Limits... where the velocity determines which one is sounding. Most configurations are a combination of horizontal and vertical mapping."

https://www.yamahasynth.com/forum/how-shift-between-velocity-layers-when-editing-a-drumset-with-the-editor

So, if we assume stereo samples for CFX (I don't have a Montage, you can check), and that for this flagship piano they used individual samples for each note, the 256 / 128 limit is already reached for one single velocity layer. So if you need more velocity layers, you have to use another element. If you need more than 8, you have to use another part.

As I said in another occasion, my impression is that the basic building blocks of Montage are quite old - Motif XS/XF (2007) plus FSR1 (1998?), tied together with a new controller matrix (and, of course, new samples, more effects, etc.). Why this is the case, one might of course speculate.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
An interesting one to reprogram was the "Woody Harp". I wanted to see if I could have aftertouch do both downward and upward bends. My usual trick is to use envelope follower, so I did that. Talk about "burning" parts - at least there's wood with this one. What I did was setup two entire PARTs for the upward vs. downward control. I used the ribbon to control up bend vs. down. What the ribbon did was either mute PART 2 or PART 3 by adjusting the operator volume to zero (maximum negative offset) depending if I was touching the far right side of the ribbon controller. I used a square curve so there's actually a landing zone on the right-hand zone. And "off" (using a reset ribbon) at ribbon=64 is used for the switch state to enable PART1 vs PART2 volume output.

Both PARTs were routed to OFF (no audio output). Both were FM init PARTs as that is a fairly stable envelope producer.

One of the two envelope creator parts would get louder as I dug into aftertouch. The other would get more quiet.

I setup curves in respond to the envelope of each PART which matched what the envelope follower was doing so that when aftertouch was not pressed for both PARTs, the destination ("Coarse" and "Cutoff" - matching the previous assignments for aftertouch - which I removed their links to aftertouch) would read a zero offset. When digging in, depending on where the ribbon was pressed (to the right side as one mode, or no touch=reset for the other mode) this would invoke PART2 or PART3 as controlling the pitch/cutoff of the harmonica.

It mostly worked. I could get something that, by command, would work roughly like the original AT-direct method. And by command - I had a new mode which would bend the notes up by about a step.

In hindsight, I should have configured both PARTs 2-3 to get louder as I dug into aftertouch. This would have better handled the reset of envelope followers when no aftertouch is applied. Instead, I had to "notch out" a zero for one of the PART's control curve in order to get it to reset properly. But as a proof of concept - it worked fairly well.

This could have also been handled by two harps that play all the time and use one envelope follower. One responding with increasing pitch to the envelope follower and the second responding with decreasing pitch. The "switch" would possibly sound abrupt when "muting" (using a negative volume offset controlled by ribbon) one harmonica or the other.

... "CFX & Pad" is one that's too subtle for me to hear much of anything with aftertouch. Even when the right PARTs were in the foreground. I had to go in and edit the ratio to +14 before I started to notice the aftertouch. I think the point is to not be noticed - but it they met and exceeded that objective (as an opinion). It may just be a placeholder to guide the programmer to add if they want it (dial it up) - but low enough so it doesn't "get in the way" for those who would not want a vibrato choir.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Falk wrote:

@ Sladjan, I believe the answer to your "why no single waveform" question can be found in the underlying architecture. As BM explained for MOXF (I believe for Montage its the same):

"A Waveform is a collection of individual samples. There can be a maximum of 256 individual samples in a Waveform. A Sample is defined by a Note Range and a Velocity Range. Why 256? There are 128 Keys (C-2 thru G8) each can hold two mono or one stereo Sample. Or you could stack samples vertically by Velocity Limits... where the velocity determines which one is sounding. Most configurations are a combination of horizontal and vertical mapping."


I'd say, you hit the nail. If there is a limitation of 256 individual samples, than yes, the CFX piano probably exceeds that number by far, so they can't offer that piano as a single waveform. I can live with that, but sometimes it is really annoying when I find a nice patch to beginn with and then I am unable to build my multitimbral performance because I don't have enough parts left. But that's another story.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
On the "compacting" option - there may be another example of a 2-PART CFX piano that this is already done with - but you can take CFX Concert and turn on all the elements of PARTs 1-2. This gives you a usable amount of velocities for the G#5-G8 keys (actually lower than G8 max, since the usable notes top out at a lower key than G8). Unrelated to usable notes (by sound): some nudging of the velocity ranges for G#-G8 may be in order. The low-end of the keyboard is unaffected so this allows removing PART3. Then if you do not find the key noises to be important - deleting PART4 allows for getting down to 2 PARTs. Since the key noises do not take up many elements - they may be able to be "stuffed" into a different AWM2 PART that is also under utilized in the context of a performance.

There are loose ends to tidy up when doing this (cannot arbitrarily stuff elements, such as the key-off noises suggested, into an existing PART without paying attention to the PART-level settings and how they may change elements that were designed for a different PART environment) - but it may be possible to at least scale down CFX Concert to 50% resources in terms of PART utilization without significant loss of piano response.

Of course if you do find another AWM2 PART home for the key-off noises, you'll want to target a "bread and butter" sound you use often so you do not have to create lots of different PARTs every time you want to add in the key-off sounds in a compact manner. Depending on how you would use this kind of hybrid part (original sound + CFX key-off) it may not be possible, if every performance is unique in terms of instrumentation, to avoid having to construct a different hybrid part every time.

I'm not saying it's a great way to go - only that it's a possible way to go with what's provided.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 15
  • Page :
  • 1


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
2018 © Yamaha Corporation of America and Yamaha Corporation. All rights reserved.