It doesn't say general transposition, it says when a wave is transposed (which is a digitally recorded sound with a looping point defined). The TX16W has the original pitch of each sample at A4 then pitch stretches or all other notes (up or down). I haven't looked at the TX16W in detail, but believe this is the general context of "transposition" which I would say is "pitch stretched away from the root note A4".

Modern AWM2 instruments can have every piano key with a different sample and in this sense would not have any pitch stretching going on at all as played in the native form. Higher notes and lower notes would all play a different sample so no scaling would apply (if we used the TX16W as a model and that was a correct assumption).

When looking at old docs, be sure not to try to force equivalency just because terms may be the same. And pay attention to other context that would make the terms differ in use.

For those Waveforms (collections of "Waves" per the old definition plus some other information) in AWM2 - it would make sense that if a sample is pitch stretched (which also means it will play shorter at higher stretched pitches and longer at lower stretched pitches) then the envelopes would scale accordingly. I don't know that to be true - but you can test this by sampling anything and creating your own waveform with a single sample on A4 (or whatever root you want) and then see what happens. Create say a PEG which is easy to hear that slowly ramps up and see if the low notes take longer to get through the PEG or not.

Wave transposition (a digitally recorded sound with a predetermined looping point) is specifically mentioned, but not general transposition. The TX16W stores each sample at its original pitch of A4, and then pitch-stretches it for all other notes (both up and down). Although I haven't examined the TX16W well, I think here is where "transposition," which I would define as "pitch stretched away from the root note A4", is most commonly used.

In this perspective, no pitch stretching would occur when playing the natural form of a modern AWM2 instrument, since each piano key might have its own unique sample. If we utilized the TX16W as a model, assuming that assumption was right, then higher notes and lower notes would each play a distinct sample, and no scaling would be necessary. wordle today

In a recent thread Jason generously provided a link to the TX16W Operating Manual as an example of older docs often having more detailed descriptions and/or examples of functionality.

Good advice, applied poorly.

The TX16W goes back 36 years and predates AWM2. So most things do not apply to your MODX/MODX+

The AWM2 engine allows you to control the Amplitude EG (Time) response across the Keys using the parameters just to the right of the Element’s “Amplitude” > “Amp EG” Time parameter settings.

There you will see how you can adjust the Time setting based on where on the keyboard (left-to-right) you are striking a Key.

Time/Key and Center Key
Time/Key — AEG Time Key Follow Sensitivity
Center Key — AEG Time Key Follow Sensitivity Center Key

The current manuals do a good job of describing how this works.
Positive values behave like real world physics, the higher the note the shorter the Time to complete the Envelope.
Negative values are science fiction, the opposite occurs, high notes last longer than low notes.

Think of an acoustic piano as a ‘real world’ example. High notes have short envelopes compared to the lower notes.

Extra Credit:
You will find similar parameters to control Pitch EG, and Filter EG… They work exactly the same way.

Good advice, applied poorly.

LOL! Well I tried hard to phrase my first question in the subject line so someone could just say NO and that would be the end of it.

Are 'rates automatically scaled' for AEG envelopes as they were for the TX16W?

Didn't make sense to me to still have 'automatic scaling' in the Modx knowing there was added functionality to effect scaling.

But just in case I was wrong I added this

If so, what exactly does that mean?

I didn't expect that second one to really be needed.

Sometimes the back-and-forth of communication in writing just isn't as efficient as actually talkiing to someone!

May I have the envelope (not to be confused with AEG, FEG or PEG) please?

And the answer to my first question is: NO - there is no automatic scaling in the Modx. The new functionalityk REPLACES it completely.

Thanks for playing, everyone. Jay - tell them what they have won.

Do not try to force the equivalencies but sometimes old documentation can give insight. If the documentation is helpful in any way and doesn't generate a deep dive of questions -- then that's how I would advocate using the information.

This particular sampler I found it historically interesting that a device in the 80s had the "Performance" "Voice" structure later used in synthesizers. It may not be the first device at Yamaha with this paradigm, but it's certainly showing that the DNA goes way back.

If there's something I'm still itching to know after reading the modern documentation then I'll start going through older equipment to see if I can find the same themes and maybe even the origin of a feature. The earlier representations of features are usually explained in more detail than later gear that uses the "exact" same approach. Usually through this process I'll gain a better or more nuanced understanding of whatever I was trying to figure out.

Also, even though I have a Montage I find that the MODX+ documentation is the most up-to-date so I'll usually use it (reference+owners) rather than using the Montage reference and then have to sort through the supplemental updates. So sometimes looking forward in docs is good too.

In a few days I guess I'll be looking forward to the M documentation.

The latest Supplementary Manual includes all the previous updates…(just FYI) so if you have a MONTAGE, you need the Reference Manual and the latest Supplementary Manual to have the equivalent of the MODX+ Reference Manual.

The latest Supplementary Manual includes all the previous updates…

Can you confirm that the docs for the new Montage M (if that is its REAL name) won't need any of the previous docs?

Can you tell us if you plan to take on the role of 'Master of the Montage M' in the forums?

Yes - the supplementary manual is cumulative but I prefer to just look at MODX where much of the same information is already integrated into context and is just generally easier to work with rather than being sure to check all of the supplementary documentation sections.

The new synth is definitely called Montage M. The Sneak Peek article has Montage_M in the filename. The advance warranty information showed the model names. International shipping records show the same model names.

I don't think you "need" past docs to use the keyboard but the older docs are always good to increase the depth of your knowledge, reinforce present docs, present a different way of explaining the same thing, etc. It's a use it or leave it kind of thing.

I don't think you "need" past docs to use the keyboard but the older docs are always good to increase the depth of your knowledge, reinforce present docs, present a different way of explaining the same thing, etc. It's a use it or leave it kind of thing.

I agree with the sentiment.

But the KEY is whether or not they do things in the same way or not. That 'scaling' question of mine all over again.

Yes both do scaling. One old one has it built-in with no user control. The new one has user control but doesn't say if the old built-in scaling is still there or not.

Same with envelope stuff. KEY ON pretty much has to be the same for any envelope driven by that key as does KEY OFF.

But 'hold' in one (type of) envelope or engine type (AWM2, FM-X, AN1) may not be the same in all other types.

You can't assume the same feature works the same way just because it has the same name. That even applies to the Modx and Montage for some things. Internal rates and algorithms may be different in different models.

It would be of benefit to know for Montage M which features inherited from Montage are identical and which have been modified/enhanced in some fashion.

There's only 4-ish days to find out, but I'm guessing a lot of the DNA will be the same. I'm not expecting envelopes to have different shapes you can use (linear vs. exponential and other options). I'm not expecting there to be more (or less) EG phases. I'm not really expecting this level of the system is going to get more resolution. I'm not expecting the presentation of level + time is going to be any different.

I'm more expecting that you'll recognize a lot of the same screens with lots of carry-over. Differentiating things will be new without a total revamp. I would hope that the MIDI receive channel stuff gets sorted out but who knows (outside of Yamaha). I could go on and already erased a bunch of tangent stuff. We know that navigation screen is new.