is the MODX capable of splitting 3 sounds simultaneously?

The MODX is easily capable of splitting/layering as many as eight sounds in a single program, called a Performance.

Each instrument sound can be given a Key Range, as you may require. You will find that the MODX is extremely programmable when it comes to creating setups.

Shown above a four PART Performance showing a split Bass (two sounds) and an acoustic piano in the right hand... The strings are across all keys because, this being MODX with Motion Control, the strings are faded in when you move the Super Knob using an FC7 pedal. You can see the Key Ranges and that there are 8 slots that can be setup for real time play from the Keyboard.

This is great for building ensemble sounds with different components as well as for traditional Split Layer duties:

I'm a Yamaha fan, I have MX61, MX49, reface DX and some other synths (Kawai ES110 88keys hammer).
I currently use MX61 in most cases although I miss some keys and maybe a hammer action so I have to carry a second keyboard sometimes.
...
I may buy the new P121, which along with MX49 will do anything. 3 sounds at the same time (one from P121 and 2 split/layer from MX49, or other possibilities) hammer and synth actions, but 2 keys and some more weight to carry.

Of course the MODX7 is a bg step up from the MX, and as you've seen, it will handle 3 sounds at a time and then some. But in the mean time, in case you're not aware, you can also play 3 sounds at a time right on your MX... see http://motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/464650

As for the 88, even if you get the MODX7, you still may sometimes want to bring another board for its hammer action. I see the temptation of the small size of the P121, but especially since you already own the ES110, I'd be inclined to stick with that because it has a standard 5-pin DIN MIDI port, which Yamaha doesn't include on their lower end pianos anymore. Unlike the P121, you can actually plug the ES110 directly into an MX or a MODX to play those sounds from a hammer action (even while playing other sounds from the MX or MODX, within certain limits on the MODX).

The MODX is easily capable of splitting/layering as many as eight sounds in a single program, called a Performance.

This is PART-level splitting. And is an easy way to accomplish more than 3 splits.

With slightly more difficulty, you can split each PART into 8 different splits using elements and element note limits. By using this technique, you could end up with as many as 64 splits.

... then a drum part gives you 73 notes you can "split" any way you choose with different 1-shot samples. That's even more difficult to deal with as a technique to generate splits of melodic instruments.

The MODX is easily capable of splitting/layering as many as eight sounds in a single program, called a Performance.

This is PART-level splitting. And is an easy way to accomplish more than 3 splits.

With slightly more difficulty, you can split each PART into 8 different splits using elements and element note limits. By using this technique, you could end up with as many as 64 splits.

Yes, good point, but Part-level splitting... because “splitting” at the Element-level of the architecture can be some what less flexible as it is not always possible to separate controllers as you might desire — often, exactly what you want in a ‘split’. Sure, it makes a great specification to say “64 splits’ but it should appear with a very large asterisk denoting it’s esoteric nature. Creating a piano/bass split at the Element-level could be clever, to be sure - but trying to defeat the Sustain pedal for the Bass Elements while getting full Sustain Pedal use from the Piano Elements within the same entity, a simple thing at the Part-level, becomes true rocket-science at this level of the architecture.

The sheer abundance of control you have at the Part-level make it the ‘go to’ place when creating splits/layers.
I guess you could say “a Drum Kit is a 72-way split”, because of its independent instrument per Key layout but it’s semantics at this point.

So by “easily capable of splitting/layering as many as eight” means just what it says. It would be a hard specification to promote “the synth can do as many as 64 Splits!”* *but only if you....

Now that said, it’s a good point because it points to the depth of programming available, particularly for layering certain sounds, this Element-level of the architecture become a bit more practical... simply because in a layer situation you often select two or more sounds that you want them to *share* behaviors, where in a split, more often than not, you want each to do something different in each range.

EXTRA CREDIT:
The Element (which is the basic playable AWM2 Sample-based entity) is a complete synth engine in miniature, capable of containing 256 samples, mapped horizontally and vertically on the Keyboard; It has its own volume, pan position, Note region, Velocity region, pitch envelope generator etc.; It has its own Filter, and filter envelope generator, etc.; It has its on Amplitude envelope generator, LFOs, etc.; It has its own routing to either or both or neither of the Dual Insertion Effects... so you can think of each Element as a complete “Synthesizer” path capable of creating a complete playable instrument (even though it most often used as just one component building block in the development of a sound). Some times an Element can be a sound effect (like the felt dampers dropping back on the strings of an acoustic grand) and some times it is the entire string section of a world-class symphony orchestra!

Yes, there exist in the Wave ROM, a single Stereo Element with some 250 samples that are used to make a full concert grand piano... it already has multiple velocity switches built into it. It can be recalled as a single Element piano. Likewise, as pointed out in the “scuba level” tutorial articles, there is a String Orchestra Element that captures the entire ensemble in one Stereo Element. If you are looking to build a piano, string, electric piano, and pad layered Performance... knowing about these “skinny” but very powerful Elements, can be very useful. Skinny from the number of construction components it uses, but full sounding because of what it is a sample of...

When building your own custom instruments, knowing the power within a single AWM2 Element is a great place to begin (when you’re ready). If you start with Seattle Sections, for example, as your strings (56 Elements) you’re gonna possibly get into trouble, if you then want to add a Multi Part piano, and a Multi Element electric piano and a Pad... but knowing about the Stereo Elements that the programmer’s use as the basic backbone of most Performances using string orchestra as a component, is priceless.

This is why the tutorial articles take you through “exploring” existing programs...as a method to learn the architecture.

Today’s knowledge point: Before you can create a Split, you need to learn to Layer
In other words, explore and learn how layering takes place at all levels of the architecture.

I totally agree - which is why I said your (BM's) summary was exactly on-point for the easy approach and offered ones that have more difficulties to deal with (I did disclose this) - but still can squeeze out more splits if you're finding yourself out of resources after 8 easy-road splits.

Not only layering with elements - but if you have mutually exclusive sounds and also deal with any PART-level offsets which will affect all elements - then you can "cram" up to 3 different sets of elements into a single PART. Then use XA control A.SW1 ON or A.SW2 ON or A.SW OFF to arrive at 3 different "states" where only one set of elements is selected. If you really wanted - you could also combine the elements which are on when A.SW1 and A.SW2 are both on - if that's a thing you want. The sequence of turning them on/off can be preplanned which will make pressing the A.SW1/A.SW2 buttons easy without requiring to push two at once.

Not all techniques work for all situations. Even without element compression (which I can do on many of my Performances to free up PARTs - if I wanted) - I have a 1:1 ratio between Performances and tunes (or even medleys) my band plays. This is how I manage to stay out of having to switch Performances in the middle of a run or something which would require no hiccup with the new sounds (delay in load). All sounds for my tune from first downbeat to last are available to me for all tunes. I've got this compression headroom where I could refactor and add more PARTs if I needed. The acrobatics on my end would change from using a scene button to using an assignable switch. I could even keep using the scene button if I used control ARPs which pressed (or released) the A.SW1 or A.SW2 buttons.

My recommendation is not to start at elements - but it's an important part of the landscape to be aware of. As often I see users in a trap that they've tapped out their instrument and start to feel the instrument has let them down perceiving some lack of flexibility. Yes, there's a lot of work to do if you get to the element-level "splits". And, again, I haven't had to employ this in any of my Performances. However, it is available as an available option should you need/want it.

I haven't had to employ this in any of my Performances.

Of that I’m pretty sure...

I used Jason's method on Motif XF and MOXF (Performance mode) when I needed more than 4 Voices for a song. (I never migrated to Song mode where it could be easier).

Now with my MODX, that will seldom to never be necessary. I still have those I imported from my legacy boards, but rolling forward its just easier to grab another Part. I agree with Phil - that is not as easy and you run into other notable limits or compromises as all of the elements in a part share many common attributes - so you must use the same on these for all 8 elements.

Most notable roadblock I found was you can only use or not use the same 2 insertion effects on all 8 elements. you can't pick 2 different effects for Element 5-8 for example.

Most notable roadblock I found was you can only use or not use the same 2 insertion effects on all 8 elements. you can't pick 2 different effects for Element 5-8 for example.

Agreed, it is like moving in the opposite direction... You want to use a separate PART because of the all the additional advantages it allows. By separating the additional instruments to their own PART you gain flexibility, rather than trade it in.

The concept of having all the Elements together can be an advantage when building up - when you actually want to treat them as a group. And although there are many interesting things you can do within the confines of a single PART, I'd prefer to use this advantage in other ways; rather than attempting to build a piano / bass split within a single PART - while it could be done, but I ask WHY?

And the example you give... picking different effects for the other Elements - by placing those Elements in a separate PART - just imagine the flexibility now... you could set it up so that if you use there Parts to build an instrument with distinct velocity layers - Soft - Medium - Loud... you can have different sets of Dual Insertion Effects happening for each. You could setup the same instrument in the three Parts, but have each with a different set of Dual Insertion Effects active - then you can morph between the three with the Super Knob/FC2...

The Gallery sounds like "8 Amps and a TC" - eight different amplifier setups on a Telecaster Guitar! or "Steel Twin Gallery" - four different treatments of a Steel String acoustic guitar - use the SCENE buttons to switch treatments.

Spread out - embrace the possibilities of the extra ELBOW ROOM!

Thank you very much all for your time and replies!

You have already given me the answer and much more than that.

As for the hammer action, yes Kawai ES110 has a better action feel, but Yamaha P121 is also good for just a light setup. Although I have MX v1 and not v2, I think I can buy a separate midi usb host device like Kenton to operate P121 usb (midi out) to MX 5din midi in. Although I think I can trade my v1 for a v2 MX and connect P121 usb (midi out) to MX usb (midi in), cause MX v2 says it is usb-midi class-compliant. Or not???

I really like Kawai's actions but I tested P125 sounds and they are also very good and much more all-around as a one setup to go.

As for MX layer/split for over 2 sounds, I read that I need VYCRO MX Editor to do that, which is a bit of mess, because most of the time the MX stays in the private rehearsal studio with no pc or laptop available around, so taking MX to home everytime (one or maybe twice a week) for re-programming through my laptop is not a good option. This was also the case with Kurzweil SP4-7 for over 2 sounds layering/splitting (I could achieve that only via pc software) so it had to go sometime ago...

As for the hammer action, yes Kawai ES110 has a better action feel, but Yamaha P121 is also good for just a light setup. Although I have MX v1 and not v2, I think I can buy a separate midi usb host device like Kenton to operate P121 usb (midi out) to MX 5din midi in.

That will probably work.

Although I think I can trade my v1 for a v2 MX and connect P121 usb (midi out) to MX usb (midi in), cause MX v2 says it is usb-midi class-compliant. Or not???

Not. Class compliance is not the issue.

As for MX layer/split for over 2 sounds, I read that I need VYCRO MX Editor to do that, which is a bit of mess, because most of the time the MX stays in the private rehearsal studio with no pc or laptop available around, so taking MX to home everytime (one or maybe twice a week) for re-programming through my laptop is not a good option.

The idea would be that you repeatedly need the same multi-sound setups, so you could do them once and then not necessarily need to do more such programming for a good while. But if your split/layer needs change weekly and you can't conveniently have your laptop and MX in the same place, yeah, that doesn't really work.

This was also the case with Kurzweil SP4-7 for over 2 sounds layering/splitting (I could achieve that only via pc software) so it had to go sometime ago...

That's odd... it's been a while, but I remember doing 4-way splits/layers right from the SP4-7 front panel. Four was the limit, though.

I'm sure I did advanced 4-way splits/layers from the SP4-7 software on the PC, I don't remember if I could do simple ones from the SP4-7's panel but I'm sure I coundn't do what I wanted.
I also found this little one https://www.thomann.de/gr/mode_machines_cerebel_usb.htm
maybe use this with a P121 and the MX49 on-top, or buy a MODX7 at last.

Any thoughs about the MODX7 key action? Is this the same as the MOXF6 semi or is it better like montage? MX49/61 has the same keys as MOXF6 but a little lighter (synth action) and although I have really get used of I can't really say I'm in love with them, as long as they are a little narrower (the octave is smaller on all Yamaha cheap synths/arrangers/portables).

Not like Montage. Lack of aftertouch in MODX is indicitive of a difference not only in features, but also construction and feel.

That said, I find differences very subtle in Yamaha synth action between MO series and flagships (Motif/Montage) where the weighted action feels more drastically different between MO and flagships.

Hello,
Does anyone know if the new MO series (MODX6 or MODX7) has the same semi keys as MOXF6 or the synth keys like MX49/61?
Thank you!

MODX6/7 has a very similar, if not the same (different sources, different opinions) semi-weighted keys as MOXF6.
It's clearly stated in the specification, btw...