When using the Cutoff knob, is there away to change the filter type?

The dedicated Cutoff knob can increase or decrease the cutoff frequency of all the filters (when Common is lit) or just those of the selected Part [1]-[16]. It does not control a specific filter, it sends cc74 Cutoff/Brightness, so it could be changing scores of filters simultaneously or just a single Part's filter Cutoff frequency. If you have a 7 Part Performance each with 8 Elements, and [COMMON] is lit, you would be offsetting 56 filters, simultaneously.

It would be non-musical to change filter type in realtime via this method. That is, the sound/result of that would not be a musical result.

There is a precedence for real-time filter type control in "stomp boxes" or a multi-effect unit with a pedal board.

Just about every guitarist - from the "gods" to the weekend warriors - in every genre - uses a collection of filters that mid-song or mid-measure are switched on and off to change the tonal quality for different sections of a tune, phrases, or even specific lines ("licks"). The Rhodes piano and many electric keyboards (Yamaha CP-80, etc) are musically paired with a bag full of effects (filters) in the same manner as a guitarist. Herbie Hancock, George Duke, Chick Corea (electric band), etc. come to mind.

Some effects and even amplifiers with built-in effects - and even keyboards from other manufacturers have a rotary dial which switches to different effects or effect chains depending on the position. If effect type was a destination - then an assignable knob could be programmed to have maybe 4 regions where the different effects could be "switched" without too much trouble from one setting to the next. Although this could also be done by "burning" parts - having two parts with the same exact elements/settings other than two different sets of InsA/InsB effects - then volume switch the parts in/out depending on the effects desired - it may be more efficient and useful to have the ability to switch effects out. ... another possibility is leveraging SSS and switching between performances which are the same except for the effects used. As this can be semi-automated by using a footswitch (momentary) to "bump" to the next live set - it's one of many options available.

Rather than a lack of musicality - the real problem here is that effects have a laundry list of parameters. And how would Montage (in the hypothetical that the feature existed) deal with the parameters of each effect as you switch from one effect to another? Either just use the "basic" default settings - which may not be sufficient for people (itself is a limitation) - or you have to have a lot more memory (and MIDI parameter address space) to save all the settings of all the possible effects you can switch between. This is where offering a solution becomes impractical - NOT unmusical.

Of course you can change the filter type with a Scene. You can filter by morphing between sounds, there's many, many ways to change filters with Montage during performing. (You are kidding right?)

And by non-musical, I'm referring to clicking through different filter during a held note will make a non-musical glitch. Not something musically pleasing ...(sort of like the click you get when stomp on the stomp box, non-musical... ) Scenes can swap between Parts (see and "Gallery" Performance) where you can have several variations of the same instrument each could be programmed with radically different filters. It does not (always) have to be done on a knob, or as your first whim dictates or as first thought occurs. (My suggestion): Spend some more time with it before you conclude what can't be done. Just perhaps there is another method to do it.

@Chris:

Since I don't have my board up - I can't really dig to see if there's a way to "easily" control the filter type. It does depend on context - because I know at a certain level - filter type is not an option and only cutoff/resonance is. FM-X comes to mind. But perhaps this is all AWM2.

I do know that under all environments (AWM2 or FM-X) that if you copy the PART and replicate it in a second part - that second part will be the same as the first part except you can go in and change InsA and InsB to be a different set of filters. Then switch (or morph) between the two PARTs. I call this burning parts. There are lots of different scenarios when one solution to the problem is to replicate a PART to another PART which is highly related - but has some difference that the user would otherwise want to have programmatic control under the first part and not, as I say, "burn" a PART slot - meaning utilize an extra part slot - which are limited in count - just for the goals they are trying to achieve.

The colloquial phrase "burning ..." is most likely a reference to the "scorched earth" military tactic where you burn an area of land of your enemy as you conquer the territory so the land is no longer of any use to the enemy even if they were to reclaim it.

@Chris:

Since I don't have my board up - I can't really dig to see if there's a way to "easily" control the filter type. It does depend on context - because I know at a certain level - filter type is not an option and only cutoff/resonance is. FM-X comes to mind. But perhaps this is all AWM2.

I do know that under all environments (AWM2 or FM-X) that if you copy the PART and replicate it in a second part - that second part will be the same as the first part except you can go in and change InsA and InsB to be a different set of filters. Then switch (or morph) between the two PARTs. I call this burning parts. There are lots of different scenarios when one solution to the problem is to replicate a PART to another PART which is highly related - but has some difference that the user would otherwise want to have programmatic control under the first part and not, as I say, "burn" a PART slot - meaning utilize an extra part slot - which are limited in count - just for the goals they are trying to achieve.

The colloquial phrase "burning ..." is most likely a reference to the "scorched earth" military tactic where you burn an area of land of your enemy as you conquer the territory so the land is no longer of any use to the enemy even if they were to reclaim it.

Much better thinking than you can't do it; just a few points of order: Filters are available per AWM2 Element. Filters are totally separate from InsA or InsB. The Insert Effects are per Part, but each AWM2 Element has its own Filter type. In FM-X, more akin to the analog synth paradigm, all Operators (oscillators) go through the FM-X Part's one Filter.
(Although each Operator has its own AEG, they all share the same Filter).

The concept of "burning Parts" (although completely understood is poorly named, 'burning Elements' would be at least more accurate) but "burning" some how has a connotation of being somehow wasteful or unnecessary use... I contend that this is exactly what they're for... The whole concept of expanding the number of available Elements available when creating a sound is at very core of the Montage concept. Each Element allows for increased articulation and sonic possibilities. But, yes, you will be "using" them.

Montage allows sophisticated morphing between active Elements, which in turn means you can morph between active Filters. Element 1 could be assigned a LPF24A (4 pole analog type), while Element 2 could be assigned a Band Pass Filter, while Element 3 could be assigned a High Pass Filter... and so on. With The AsgnKnob and Super Knob, you could morph between these Elements, thus selecting different Filter types during a performance in a completely musical way (the term "musical" here, again, not a value judgement, simply meaning without an annoying "click" as would happen if you simply had it as an assignable selection or the annoying click when you flip the wah-wah pedal or previously mentioned stomp boxes from normal (Bypass) to an active state.. instead this morphing would be smooth as silk (musically useful). Hope that's clearer now.

As I mentioned - what you have to burn ... I mean replicate and modify as a "trick" which saves two highly related copies - the second "copy" of which utilizes one of a limited number of resources (either part or element depending on context).

... backing up: As I mentioned - what you have to replicate depends on context and the only globally (applies to all) applicable answer is a PART. I did mention that AWM2 would be a slightly different answer - this is where (I didn't state it specifically but alluded to) element-level is OK vs part level as long as the PART does not utilize more than 4 elements. So even in AWM2 - there is a path where PART level burning - I mean replication - is the trick needed.

For example - if the PART used 5 elements - then you only have 3 elements left as slots to "copy" for applying the new effect/filter to. So you'll have to go the PART copy route and "eat" a PART for this feature. Of course - there are exceptions like maybe some elements are key click noise or other items which you can say do not need different filters - but the general statement of above 4 parts and you'll need to replicate at the PART level applies for the lion share.

For all the times where resources do not constrain accomplishing this task - we may be in the "OK" territory. Although whenever you have a related copy and do this trick - if you want all copies to maintain the same values for everything else (meaning all but the slightly changed - intentionally different - parameter) - you run into a "cache coherency" issue by having to modify each copy if you decide - for example - to change the volume of an element - or key range - or ... You have to one-by-one also modify the copies. This is the nature of the beast (using the "copy" trick to sidestep some other limitation in programming). All around - using a less than positive connotation for the process is appropriate.

I'm here to provide solutions - and am happy to see that there are solutions available for what most users start out thinking is impossible. "Impossibility" will start to creep in as you run out of resources - which can happen quick with using this sort of trick. Resource conservation is not weighted as heavily with less complex programs.

I also think the end goal of most users can be accomplished with what's already available - but at some point as you push the hardware - you run into the line where tradeoffs have to be made and "de-feature" your program to fit within the boundaries.

Not to beat a dead horse - but I will ...

Because I think it's important that Yamaha continue to improve in the "organic" department - am happy that Montage has come a long way vs. earlier synths from Yamaha - I want to again take the opportunity to reinforce the paradigm around "noise is not a bad or unmusical thing".

Lets take a Rhodes - it has lots of noisy features that makes the original wood/metal/plastic beast a beautiful and dynamic instrument. "Bark", "key noise", "amp hum", "mechanical sustain activation noise", etc - all noisy things. And earlier Yamaha renditions of Rhodes were so clean and lacking noise that a fair critique was "lifeless" or "sterile" etc. The current Rhodes is more organic with some noise added.

Take the tonewheel organ - same kind of analogy here. Key contact noise, leakage, limitations of the bus requiring foldback, amp hum, air movement noises, etc ... Mostly noise category parameters - but added up make the sound more "organic" if there - and sound more "processed" if not there. There's a class of users who like the "pristine" "processed" sound - and ones that like the "gritty" "organic" sound.

I like that Yamaha is starting to value "organic" and "gritty" - so we can dial this in more now than we have in the past. In order to continue down this path requires sticking with the paradigm shift that values noise and doesn't start to "knee jerk" responding to noisy events as unmusical. I would say you would want to have the "smooth" version while also proving the noisy path for those who prefer something more organic with warts - and think of both as complementary goals.

A saxophone has key click noise - key/rod/stopper/actuator movement noises - pad closing on tone-hole noises and the associated "pop" like hitting the top/opening of an empty jug - reed position artifacts - strange overtones for certain high notes including the multiphonics. There's not a saxophone "rhodes gallery" type thing - but it would have some form of these noises on the last scene. So it would be great to make "noise" even more prevalent than it is today. I know this conical bore instrument is difficult to replicate - so not to get labored into this example - just focused more on the noisy clicking stuff.

That a parameter may have noise artifacts while switching should not necessarily be a reason to avoid having that as an option. Some producers even go through great lengths to record what sounds like plugging into a live amp or pulling the plug - and artifacts - and warts. Depends on the genre somewhat.

And with motion sequence - we can (maybe) manage the noise by de-emphasizing the volume while at the same time parameter switching something that causes noise. So one "problem" perhaps fuels use of something provided as a solution if you want to avoid the switching noise issue.

I know Yamaha gets this - every once and a while the "pristine is best" paradigm bubbles up to the top - so it's good to keep this in check to ensure the evolution continues to grow the "organic"/"gritty" side as well.

Chris wrote:

It would sure be nice if we had 2 more selections for motion sequencing a C and D shape as well. I am using the hold pattern for one slot, but I want a sweep in and sweep out. So far I can only have one or the other. Mayby smooth control will work...

This is the pulse section. For a pulse, if you're OK with "holding" at the origin (0 for unipolar or 64 if bipolar - not sure what you have programmed in there) then you could set the scale to "0" for unipolar (or 64 for bipolar) which will "flatten out" your pulse to just the origin value. It's the number under your ramp/pulse picture and above the "A" or "B".

Also, if you wanted to add values starting from 0 and going up to 64 (an up slope) vs starting with 127 and adding down to 64 (a down slope) you could have both an up and down slope by using bipolar pulses and having the up-slope with a value starting at 0 (or anything less than 64) and a down-slope starting at 127 (or anything greater than 64) as this "scale" value I described in the last paragraph.

notice how cycle 2 (the blue down ramp) has a scale of 127 and how cycle 6 (the blue up ramp) has a scale of 0.

Your other thread I had you learning just the destination curves (which this is not, these are the pulses). There is a BM tutorial on pulses in the Mastering Montage series. I believe there are other tricks at your disposal if you want to learn more - but would encourage grasping the destination curves first before moving to pulses.