YamahaSynth.com Forums

This is the place to talk about all things related to Yamaha Synthesizers!
  1. Tom
  2. Sherlock Holmes The Voice
  3. MODX
  4. Saturday, 15 September 2018
Internal MIDI on the MODX?
Same as Montage?
or MOXF?

Also
How many Library Slots?
Responses (28)
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
MIDI is MIDI, same as it ever was. What do you mean by this question?

Although you can safely say, the MODX has more in common with MONTAGE than it does with the MOXF.

There are 8 Libraries.

A Library consists of:
640 Performances
256 User Arpeggios
256 User Motion Sequences
2048 Waveforms
2048 Live Set slots
8 User MicroTunings
32 User Curves
128 Audition Phrases
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It is a cool Montage JR.
The 8 Lib's is Much easier than switching via Flash on the MOXF. Every time you want to change a lib.

Now Phil
comon....
There have been many, many Discussions about the Montage MIDI being 'pre-assigned'.
So It looks like It is going to be the same for the MODX. And after watching the MODX videos.
I sorta knew it was a Rhetorical question.:D
But I like to get things Clarified.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I sort of knew you knew it was a rhetorical question...

If you want to operate as you did, transmitting via a Sequencer to the Tone Generator, you can with an external Sequencer... using Single Part programs, one per. In that setup you accomplished layering by setting the Tone Generator Parts on the same Receive Channel. On the MONTAGE/MODX each Part occupies its own channel... because the keyboard can transmit on multiple channel. That’s what is different. If you wish to play multiple Parts -each Part will generate data for itself on the corresponding channel. This way when you play it back - it plays correctly.... drums to drums, piano to piano, bass to bass, etc.,
To accomplish this “layering” or stacking with MONTAGE or MODX, you simply duplicate your transmit data... if recording to a DAW - you can simply *copy* the track data and feed it to the Parts you desire... Because each Part occupies a Channel of its own. (That can be accomplished in most any DAW with a click, a drag and a drop... really).

We think people can hear that difference, or at least feel a difference that it can mean in the sonic results... particularly when controlling more than one Part where they are actively interacting with each other. A big part of what Motion Control brings to the table is the interaction via side chain modulation, and the various ways to morph instruments and control the performed result. Arpeggiators are or can be an integral part of the interaction; beyond being used for the traditional Note flourishes, they can be all manner of tempo driven modulation.

The MONTAGE and MODX, happen to be gateway products to a synth future that is all about breaking conventions; simultaneous control of multiple streams (each) with not only standard controllers, but their own independent messages designed for the type sound being manipulated on that Channel.

MIDI is confusing for many. (Same as it always was). Working around the fact that you can’t make multiple simultaneous stacks on various channels using Parts is the issue for some, but they if they just look at it from the other side the solution is easy enough.
Of course, being able to set the Receive Channel to accommodate a different workflow has been suggested (and I’m sure is under study), but it is not the only thing different about Motion Control. And in the meantime, if you need to work around this, the solution is think Transmit, not Receive.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 3
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Super disappointed to discover MODX simply duplicating the glaring MIDI problem with Montage. The inability to assign a MIDI receive channel per part means that you cannot effectively use either Montage or MODX as a master keyboard because you cannot program splits or layers for an external controller.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Well.....
I can hear a sonic difference between My MOXF and My Montage.
But at MP3. Does it matter?:p
----------
However
There is Room for both types of Keyboard.
But now that Roland is out of it. No Hope of Competition driving Continuing change to A product.

The MoxF Could have had a Upgrade. That would have Satisfied a lot of players. *See new Request to update the MOXF.
I have my MOXF for 3 reasons.
1. Montage Keybed spacing is too tight for me.
2. Karma (But that is now ????).
3. Moxf Keybed Spacing was/is correct.
Komplete Kontrol as Master Keyboard. And the Montage is 2nd/3rd. in the chain.(Unless I am using it on it's own.)
-------
Now. When playing. I hate Looking at computer Screens.
But After Using the "Komplete Kontrol MK 2" and the insanely good VSTi mapping. With Cubase. VSTi-s Like OmniSphere 2.5, Ect.....
I am Toying with or starting to lean Toward. DAW's and Controller. No more Keyboards. And Sell The ones I have.(I can not play out anymore).
But again
Any deep discussion of all this. Would then involve. All kinds of Things. Like forget workstations and just use a Controller and DAW.
There does not seem to be anything. I can not do With DAW's and VSTi instruments. Except Press a power on button. And play immediately.

*1 of the biggest hits on sales of Workstations.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Well.....
I can hear a sonic difference between My MOXF and My Montage.
But at MP3. Does it matter?:p

Well, yes, actually, it does matter. If you take a high resolution picture but it is placed in the local tabloid newspaper on that rough paper, it will translate better than a low resolution picture on that same paper. So yes, it does matter!
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@Robert
Super disappointed to discover MODX simply duplicating the glaring MIDI problem with Montage. The inability to assign a MIDI receive channel per part means that you cannot effectively use either Montage or MODX as a master keyboard because you cannot program splits or layers for an external controller.
Either that’s a typo or you don’t understand this at all.

What does setting MIDI Receive Channels have to do with being a Master Keyboard?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
MP3 = Tongue in Cheek ish.;) I wrestle with MP3 quality at least 1 time a week.(OZONE 8 ADV. Dither. Is my Friend).
I only wrestle. Because. It is a far cry. From what I expect music to sound like.
I really can not listen to MP3's. I grew up with Vinyl and a Good stereo system. CD's sort of ruined Listening for me.
MP3's Well they are just Shit fidelity wise. I only listen to vinyl. and at 96K to all my songs and friends songs. And Audio from my Instruments/DAW when playing. Pretty limiting.
-----------
Jason thanks. I thought I was not saying it right: Assign 'Receive Midi Channels' is correct! (Which was my major MIDI complaint about Montage.).
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Transmit are assignable. Receive are fixed.

As a controller there much flexibility. It's as a slave that some run into configuration limitations.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 9
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Jason thanks!
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Midi is not confusing, the only thing that is confusing is the midiimplementation of the montage where you cannot assign midi per part freely. This is similar to the 90s synt alesis qs 6.1....

if yamaha cannot solve this issue over the three years that has passed since the release of Yamaha Montage, may I suggest introduction of a new midi mode to simplify life for us live keyboardists. In addition such a solution would also resolve most of the discussions around the Montage midi implementation which seems very sensitive and personal for some yamaha representatives.

So the suggestion is as follows:
Add a new midi mode(dual keyboard mode) where an external board controls midichannels 9-16 and the internal keys control channels 1-8. That way you can fly in with a montage 61/MODX6 and use whatever 88 the gig provides to control channels 9-16. THis way you would need to set two midichannels going into the Mondtage/MODX, one global and one for the additonal keyboard. Damn, you would save both money and CO2. A similar implementation exists in e.g. Nord stage 3, if you need creative inspiration on how to do this.

Humbly

Fredrik Zetterberg
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 11
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
So the suggestion is as follows:
Add a new midi mode(dual keyboard mode) where an external board controls midichannels 9-16 and the internal keys control channels 1-8. That way you can fly in with a montage 61/MODX6 and use whatever 88 the gig provides to control channels 9-16.

I'm pretty sure you can do this by using a MIDI Solutions Event Processor. I think that will let you take the MIDI events from Channel 1 (or whatever single channel your external controller is transmitting on), and send it out on channels 9 through 16 instead. Bring that little box to your fly-in (or use with whatever single-channel 88 controller you might like to use with you MODX/Montage), having set up your Performances so that you place on channels 9-16 whatever sounds you want triggered from your external board, and I think you're all set. Am I missing something, or could it really be this easy?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
The Event Processor Plus should be able to handle this. There are other hardware devices that can also rechannel in a similar manner.

Or an iPad (or PC, linux, Mac OS) can rechannel using Camelot. Blake has a demo. It's more than just Yamaha focused - https://youtu.be/7Fd1U6O4k-Q

Or a PC/Mac/etc. with a DAW to do the same thing.

... and there are other ways.

There are varying degrees of comfort with respect to "what's OK" to add to a setup in order to make everything play nice. Although there are several solutions out there - some are still left wanting a "zero adder" solution.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
For live performance (using your own second board or a backline-supplied board to trigger additional Montage/MODX sounds different from the ones you're playing on the Montage/MODX's own keys), the MIDI Solutions box looks like it solves the problem in a tiny box at a non-exorbitant price. Maybe Yamaha should just suggest that to the people who need that function, and there would be less hand-wringing on the topic. (I've seen a Casio rep suggest similar third-party devices to work around the lack of an expression pedal jack on some of their boards.)

As for the other possible ways around it you mention, of course a Mac or PC can do it, but I would understand that a lot of people wouldn't want to bring a valuable, somewhat fragile, somewhat stealable device to their gigs just to do this, nor deal with the complication of configuring it for this.

Using an iOS device makes a lot more sense, and would be an even cheaper solution than the MIDI Solutions box if you happen to already own the iPhone/iPad. Just add the Apple Camera Connection Kit, a basic MIDI-to-USB interface (which there's a good chance you also already own), and the cost of the app. I don't think Camelot is shipping yet? But other apps can do it. But for people without an iOS device (there are a lot of Android users out there!), the MIDI Solutions box would be cheaper than the cheapest iOS setup (i.e. built on an iPod Touch).

Another approach I saw mentioned was, well, just make sure your second board can function as a 4-zone controller. And sure, many of them do, even at reasonable cost and weight to nicely pair with a MODX (I'm pretty sure Kurzweil SP6 and Artis 7, Korg Kross and Krome, Casio XW-P1 and PX-5S, Roland DS and FA models, can all do this). But this is also not necessarily practical advice. For the backline situation, you can't always predict what you will get, nor would you necessarily have the knowledge of how to operate all these boards as 4-zone controllers, nor the pre-gig time to set them up to do what you need. If you're buying for yourself, that could make these better choices than some others, but not everyone is going to want to purchase a new board just to do this, if they have some other board that's working for them just fine. Moreover, there are some very desirable other boards that people may like for their own unique sounds/features/ergonomics and they may want to use those boards in conjunction with their Yamaha. Replacing a Nord Stage 3 or a Korg SV1 or a Crumar Mojo in your rig with one of the boards I mentioned just to get 4-zone capability makes no sense if you'd be losing the stuff you really like from those boards.

But yeah, it seems like, fo live performers, a MIDI Solutions box or your iPhone or whatever can solve this very well. And for studio use, you can get you PC/Mac to do whatever you need. So is this issue really overblown?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Since the start of this issue - several workarounds have been listed including, in the mix, hardware-only solutions such as the MIDI Solutions gizmo (among others).

Some of these solutions (like the MIDI Solutions one) do not easily translate to dynamic configurations. In other words - if you want anything other than one re-route choice, it's not trivial to setup a new/different set of re-channel assignments.

Something like Karma For Motif (... and making this available for Montage/MODX) would require both a way to dynamically assign MIDI channels (through MIDI messages) and also not have to support many 3rd party solutions (meaning the keyboard having this built-in is a quasi-requirement for Karma). Karma doesn't describe all situations - but some may want Performance-to-Performance variation in the setup which would require something other than the MIDI Solutions box. An iPad would likely work with proper software. The check is in the mail for some of this - but there should be other solutions out there one could leverage as well.

I'm not assigning any "severity" to this lack of flexibility. All I can do is provide what I know are workarounds for various use cases when the subject bubbles up. Hopefully it helps some.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Some of these solutions (like the MIDI Solutions one) do not easily translate to dynamic configurations. In other words - if you want anything other than one re-route choice, it's not trivial to setup a new/different set of re-channel assignments.
Okay, but for 2-board gigging, I think just one setup should address pretty much anything you're likely to need (that one setup being MIDI Channel 1 rerouted to all of channels 9 through 16). I mean, the fundamental issue is that MODX wants your second controller to be able to transmit on multiple MIDI channels, and many "second boards" can only transmit on one at a time, right? So what we're doing with the MS box (or alternatively, an iOS app) is turning the single-channel second board into a multi-channel board.

So then you'd use the first 8 Parts of a Performance for the MODX's own keys (you can't assign more than 8 Parts to that anyway), and you'd use Parts 9 through 16 for whatever sounds you want played from the external keyboard on that particular Performance. (You could even "page over" to parts 9 through 16 on the MODX display, and dynamically change which parts of 9-16 are and aren't active, adjust their levels, etc., on the fly.)

Assuming I've got that right, I have a hard time imagining any gig scenario where your there's something you could do by (the unavailable option of) assigning Parts to alternate channels, that you cannot do by just putting the sounds you want on Parts 9 through 16. I mean, sure, you might do them differently, but is there a result you cannot achieve this way?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 16
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Answering my own question about whether there is "something you could do by (the unavailable option of) assigning Parts to alternate channels, that you cannot do by just putting the sounds you want on Parts 9 through 16" (assuming you have a MIDI Solutions box or IOS app routing everything from your channel-1 second controller to all of channels 9-16 on the MODX)...

As I understand it, as soon as you put ANY sound on parts/channels 9-16, you lose the Seamless Sound Switching, even if you haven't exceeded four Parts total.

Realistically, if you intended to use your MODX to play sounds from two keyboards at the same time with at least two parts being triggered externally (because there's already no issue if you only want to trigger one externally), there's a good chance you were going to exceed four parts total anyway. But still, this does point to a limitation of the universal 9-16 approach.

Anything else?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 17
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
At the risk of beating a dead horse (it's been established already, I believe, that there is merit to MIDI channel flexibility):

Just because you are using an external keyboard does not mean you have to use different channels than the 1st 4.

One way to do this would be to use splits on a single PART instead of consuming more PARTs. Splits as defined by element note limits.

Using element note limits - you could map a piano on C-2 to D#0. That's 2+1/4 octaves below the lowest note on a 76-key synth. With the default octave setting, your local piano keys cannot reach these notes. However, you can have an external keyboard controller MIDI target these notes.

That's a specific example of a portion of the general idea - no need to use up PARTs which would invalidate SSS (if that's a goal).

Since elements are limited, you may have to handle layering with an external keyboard by using a 2nd PART with the same element split idea.

There are different ways to work around this - but that does not invalidate that there are plenty of reasonable/valid configurations which could leverage sharing MIDI channels to split - and also keeping the PART count low so that SSS works fine.

... still, one must work within reality and avail themselves to the workarounds until, if ever, options change.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 18
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
At the risk of beating a dead horse (it's been established already, I believe, that there is merit to MIDI channel flexibility)
THAT is the information I am missing, those "established merits to MIDI channel/flexibility" if you will, specifically in a 2-board gig context. My question again, was, "I have a hard time imagining any gig scenario where your there's something you could do by (the unavailable option of) assigning Parts to alternate channels, that you cannot do by just putting {the sounds you want triggered from the external keyboard} on Parts 9 through 16 {and using a device to route a single channel controller to 9-16}. I mean, sure, you might do them differently, but is there a result you cannot achieve this way?" And the one thing I came up with is, "as soon as you put ANY sound on parts/channels 9-16, you lose the Seamless Sound Switching, even if you haven't exceeded four Parts total." (Though if you're playing 2+ parts from your external controller, odds are good that you'd exceed 4 parts total anyway.) Can you point me toward any other limitations of this approach (for 2-board gigging)?

(Also, assuming there are other limitations, I'm really interested in things that could reasonably be expected to be somewhat commonly considered useful, rather than weird oddball things that may be technically impossible but are also unlikely to be needed. IOW, I'm looking for examples of "real world" limitations, not theoretical impediments to things few if any people would ever need to do. Though I understand, that distinction may not always be obvious.)

The reasons I'm focussing on the 2-board gig scenario are (1) that's what I've seen discussed most often when this issue comes up, and (2) in a non-gig scenario, it is common to have access to a computer (which is the rationale for Yamaha moving other old Motif functionalities to software like Cubasis and SampleRobot), and once you have a computer in the mix, you may easily be able to solve the problem other ways.

Just because you are using an external keyboard does not mean you have to use different channels than the 1st 4.

One way to do this would be to use splits on a single PART instead of consuming more PARTs. Splits as defined by element note limits.

Using element note limits - you could map a piano on C-2 to D#0. That's 2+1/4 octaves below the lowest note on a 76-key synth. With the default octave setting, your local piano keys cannot reach these notes. However, you can have an external keyboard controller MIDI target these notes.

That's a specific example of a portion of the general idea - no need to use up PARTs which would invalidate SSS (if that's a goal).
Yes, split-by-element could be a useful thing to do, but "not using up parts that would invalidate SSS" is not actually the goal. The goal is to use a second keyboard to play whatever combination of parts you want (okay, up to 8), while playing up-to-8 parts from the internal keys as usual, without losing your other standard MODX functionalities... even if your second keyboard only transmits on one MIDI channel.

So, okay, you could say element-based splits gives me back my otherwise lost SSS functionality (from the 9-16 plan), but then you're losing a bunch of other stuff, so the goal still isn't met, it's just not-met in a different way. I mean, say you work around that SSS limitation by working at the element level to keep everything for both boards in parts 1-4, and then maybe you use the first 2 parts for your internally triggered sounds and parts 3-4 for your externally triggered sounds... you've got your SSS back, but can you really imagine anyone wanting to do that on a global basis? (i.e. you'd have you MIDI Solutions box programmed to re-route channel 1 to channels 3-4 for the entire gig.) I don't think this is a realistic fix to the problem of the SSS limitation in the "re-route to 9-16" approach. You'd no longer have access to all the same sounds and ability to mix-and-match all the factory supplied presets at will. You'd have to do a bunch of time-consuming configuration for every combination you might want. You no longer have access to 4-part sounds on the internal keys while having the external keys playing something else. Basically, while it's good to know you can do this kind of thing to solve a special case problem, I don't think it's realistic to look at that as a "standard" way of interacting with the board. It does not really eliminate the limitation I described, it just provides a somewhat complicated and limited workaround, trading off one limitation (loss of SSS) for numerous others.

So anyway, with the actual goal now fully spelled out, is there in fact any "unfortunate limitation" of the "re-route the external board to 9-16" approach for 2-gig live performance, other than the loss of SSS (which you'd be somewhat likely to run into anyway, since it's easy to exceed 4 parts when you're splitting and layering sounds across two boards regardless)? Because if, in fact, that's the only thing you lose, it seems like this could be a viable, compact, simple-to-implement, not-too-expensive solution, as long as you can live with that one limitation. And it's not even like you lose SSS completely, you only lose it on those Performances where you have sounds assigned to the external board (where again, you'd be somewhat likely to lose it anyway, since it is easy to go beyond 4 parts in that scenario, regardless of which combination of the 16 part locations you are using).
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 19
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Scott, you are totally right that everything which the assignable channels solve could be solved by addition of hardware of some sort which can re-route input data to different channels (let's call it the processor). However at what price? And I am not talking about the money...

I am playing a hardware synthesizer because of the simplicity and reliability on stage. So I don't want a computer. But also some MIDI processor adds complexity. The box, 2 MIDI cables and probably a power supply. That's more stuff to take with you and to wire up. Stuff you could forget, stuff which breaks and so on. But that's the not the really bad part. Worse is the programming.

If the Montage / MODX had the flexible channel assignment then you could program all the routing, all the splits, all the layers in the MODX. Just add some e-piano which happens to be around, a MIDI cable and things will just work. With the MIDI processor, you have to do some programming in the MODX and some of it in the processor. And they have to be in sync. That adds complexity, effort, and more things which can go wrong. I have used such a setup for a long time and I had my share. Having only one thing to program is a major relief...
I currently use a 2 keyboard setup, the MODX 8 just as a dumb controller driving the Montage 6 which is in single mode. The MODX 8 keyboard is just a mirror of the Montage 6 keyboard which I use when I want the piano keyboard. With flexible channel assignment I would immediately start to have the MODX play only some parts, e.g. the piano and do other stuff on the Montage. I could get rid of quite a few splits... That would be very nice but I want to avoid the overhead of an additional processor (I actually do have one which I built myself and used in countless gigs).

And I believe (based on 35 years of software development) that the flexible channel mode should be easy to add to the MODX. The hardware can certainly do it (otherwise the external box would not help) and this should really be an easy filter at the place where the MIDI signals come it. They are doing it already because you can switch between single and multi MIDI mode. The step to add configurable channels should be really easy. And if I am right, then why the hell should people be burdened with extra cost, extra complexity, extra things which can go wrong? And why would the MODX and Montage be discounted by some many reviews and forum comments for the lack of flexibility which my synthesizers had 30 years ago???
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MODX
  3. # 20
  • Page :
  • 1
  • 2


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.