If you have an assignable knob assigned to volume and the full counter-clockwise sets the offset to 0 then the slider functions as if you deleted the destination.

Rather than making a blanket statement that deleting an assignment fixes everything - I think it's more useful to understand how the system works.

How the sliders work in conjunction with the control assignments is similar to gain staging. If you turn up the preamp to "11" it doesn't matter how far down you dial back main volume - you're going to have a distorted signal. There's more of an education in gain staging in how the gains along the audio chain can negatively impact the other. If you turn the main volume all the way down then this dominates. It doesn't matter how much you turn the preamp level up or down. Silence.

Although I don't see that an offset can saturate the sliders is itself broken, I do see deficits in the user interface to sufficiently communicate, intuitively, what's going on. That's where the forum becomes an asset - should you choose to utilize the information - as aspects of the keyboard with a poor user experience (usability deficits) can be explained. I'm of the mind that it shouldn't require as much explanation as is often necessary to convey the complete picture. I've casted some of my wishes into the ideascale well and I believe one covers improvements that would better reveal the modulation matrix.

@J... I totally agree that understanding offsets, and how they are employed in the "mod matrix" is essential to operation. I believe Yamaha should spell this out in the Manuals.

The "Sliders Not Working" issue frequently crops up here. And in the absence of any MIDI hook-ups, the culprit is nearly always Control Assigns. The other culprits are "another Part selected on screen" or the "Part/Element Selector Button". However these latter issues are referenced in the Manuals, and therefore fair game.

The mere query statement "the Sliders don't work" is enough to assume the User wishes to use the Sliders, and only the Sliders, to control volume in real time. That is my reasoning regards the solution, i.e. delete the Control Assigns.

I do see deficits in the user interface to sufficiently communicate, intuitively, what's going on. That's where the forum becomes an asset - should you choose to utilize the information - as aspects of the keyboard with a poor user experience (usability deficits) can be explained. I'm of the mind that it shouldn't require as much explanation as is often necessary to convey the complete picture.

I totally agree.

Thanks, Jason for the steps provided on how to delete Volume destination 6. I had to do it for each part (by which I mean one of the two violin sounds that make up the performance, sorry if that is the wrong term. I saw in this thread the term part being used in contrast to element and I'm not fully understanding the difference. I thought part was a single instrument that is incorporated in a performance made up of multiple instruments, or therefore parts. I would think element is a parameter of the same part such as pizzicato or a limited range of the same part such as G3 to B4. But it seems to me that the term element here was used more like what I thought was supposed to be a part.). Anyway, had to do it for each part because both parts together sound much more full, therefore I didn't want to have to use just one part.
It's quite a number of steps, And have to do it all over again after I turn off the MODX, unless, of course, I make up a new performance that I save, which I will have to do.

I think a rule of thumb for manufacturers should be to give a sound its tailoring, not in a nonsensical, random way, but rather in a way that most people will want to use that instrument. It is mere logic based on knowing how music works... I never want to use pitch bend on an imperial grand piano... So, The manufacturer should ask themselves: Will most people want to keep merging/switching (with the Superknob) between two quite different violin sounds? Is that more likely to be used? Who wants to write a violin line and have it sound as if now a viola is playing, now a violin has morphed in. It's a violin, not an electric guitar with a set of oscillating effects on it. So why make the standard of this performance, named Solo VIolin AF1 with a merging feature that disables the full control of volume on the sliders, when the volume is a much more important feature to have when playing a violin part? Instead of giving the instrument a feature that would be welcomed on a synth instrument, but not welcomed on a sampled acoustic instrument that tries very hard to sound like the real thing. Why then give it a weird electronic two instrument merging functionality that a real violin would never use. Let me make that decision if I want a Lunar sounding violin, and I'll change how two parts interact, but don't take away from me the control that is most likely to be necessary - which is full volume control.
Just my opinion.

I think what you're missing is that something other than the sliders can control volume. The ghost in the machine, if you will. At first this can be daunting, confusing, illogical.

I understood that parameters are digitally assigned in various ways to different controllers, and that's going to vary between performances. That's not what's illogical. What is, is by default assigning a certain functionality to an instrument (i.e. oscillate between two quite different violin sounds with the Superknob but offer very little volume control of all parts via sliders) which said default functionality is unlikely to be needed by the most number of people. Strings are used to produce sounds growing out of silence and frequently varying their dynamics, so control of volume on the sliders is the one that makes the most sense for this instrument, not oscillating between two quite different violins. The little monitor volume knob offers too little sensitivity to be used acceptably well for those purposes.

@Adrian...

Reading through your comprehensive replies, may I offer the following advice.

Firstly, your approach to the MODX is understandable, but it reads more like a design wish-list. The truth is it doesn't behave how you would hope. However this needn't be a problem, because the way it does behave makes it more powerful, and offers you a lot more options, which at the moment, you don't realise you need.

The first step then is learning and understanding exactly how it does behave.

So....

Regarding Slider controls. These are the factory default options/functions on an "Initialised" Performance. An initialised performance is devoid of any Control Assignments.

Control Assignments are the equivalent of a "Mod Matrix"... as it is often referred to on other Synths.

Control Assignments are provided as an "optional" means of changing Synth Parameters in real-time "live" performances, either manually or via automation (LFOs, Motion Sequencing etc)

Therefore, it is assumed that any User who creates a Control Assignment, understands that they are changing default functionality. Moreover, they are seeking to "customise and enhance" functionality, and they are forfeiting default functionality.

Control Assignments are User Custom Options.

In effect, a Factory Installed Preset is just "a list" of somebody else's "User Custom Options".

The person who created that Preset had the knowledge to employ those options as he saw fit.

If you wish to "change" those options to your personal preferences, then you also, must have the knowledge to do that. Gaining that knowledge takes time.

One lesson you have discovered here is...

If you wish to use Sliders as a Volume or Level control you must remove any Part Volume or Element Level Control Assignments. It is black and white.

It is not poor design, it is just how the machine works.

Equally, if you wish to continue using the default slider volume and level functionality, then you must not assign those functions to a different Controller (Assign Knob, Mod Wheel etc).

@Adrian...

Regarding Performance vs Part vs Element (or Operator in FM-X).

You will need to understand the Architecture and Heirarchy of the MODX System ASAP.

Elements are only found in AWM2 "Sample Engine" Parts.

AWM2 has "Normal Parts" and "Drum Parts". Normal is your Violins, Trumpets, Pianos etc. We will ignore Drums here, except to say Drum Parts behave very differently.

An "Element" is a recorded "Sound Sample".

A Part can "play" up to 8 Elements. Elements can only be "played" once associated with a Part.

The Elements in a Part DO NOT need to be related in in any way.

For example.... In a Part, it is not required that all Elements are Piano Samples, or Violin Samples etc.

In fact, as a Synthesiser, it would be expected that the User choose different, unrelated Elements in order to create the Part. This is fundamental to unique Sound Design and Sound Creation.

As mentioned in a previous Post, you can think of each Element as a "Mini-Synth"*, and the Part can play up to 8 Mini-Synths simultaneously.

* Each Element has its own Level, Pitch, Filter, LFO and ADSRs for Pitch, Amplitude and Filter.

A Performance can play up to 8 Parts simultaneously (Keyboard Control... ignore 9-16 MIDI control for now).

Likewise, a Part can only be Played if associated within a Performance.

The Performance is the tip of the Pyramid in the Heirarchy. The MODX will only Store and Load Performances. You cannot search, load and play Elements or Parts in isolation. They must be associated within a Performance.

In theory you could create an Orchestra within a Single Part.

Example:-
Element 1 - String Ensemble
Element 2 - Brass Ensemble
Element 3 - Woodwind Ensemble
Element 4 - Tympany
Element 5 - Piano Soft (Velocity Limited)
Element 6 - Piano Hard (Velocity Limited)
Element 7 - Solo Violin
Element 8 - Solo Cello

The "Ensemble" Samples are studio recordings of multiple instruments playing simultaneously.

For example 2 Violins, A Viola and a Cello.

You could use an Ensemble Element or, you could create your own Ensemble. For example:-

Part 1
Element 1 = Violin 1 - Solo
Element 2 = Violin 2 - comp
Element 3 = Viola
Element 4 = Cello.

You could also Level, Stereo Pan and EQ each Element (instrument) to create your own Ensemble Dynamics.

Or you could really go to town on the creation and have:-

Part 1 - Violin 1
Part 2 - Violin 2
Part 3 - Viola
Part 4 - Cello.

Where each Part is an "intricate" recreation of an instrument, with Velocity and Key splits, as well as Independent individual FX, Dynamics, Control etc.

Hope this helps.

Hopefully what you can see is not "Poor Design" but a staggering amount of User Control and Options. The caveat with that power is complexity. There is no avoiding this, the more time you spend, the more understanding you will gain.

This 20 minute vid will save your sanity:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89P_uqcSHrA

Yes, the MODX/Montage UI and OS are (in my opinion) very poorly designed.

They are also powerful devices, and this compounds the resultant complexity and byzantine result of the poor design of the UI and OS.

First, I'm not so ready to join the "gang" and dictate he needs to reevaluate the feelings a particular Preset. There are lots that are not useful to me and I think the content providers could always do a better job of accommodating my own personal tastes. And I even think there are times when there's a technical issue that probably would be picked up by anyone, no matter their background, inside certain "rushed" or seemingly less well thought out Performances. The solo violin Performance with 2 Parts morphing has what I believe is a technical flaw. When moving the Super Knob from full counter clockwise (CCW) to full clockwise (CW), there's a spot where one violin is "handed off" to the other and the morphing doesn't sound fluid. There's a discontinuity where the volume dips and this really goes, to me, outside of a "morph" (which I believe has some expectation of an unnoticeable transition) to a fade-out, fade-in like an old movie scene change. Its my personal evaluation that this example is done in a less musical way. If the intent was to leave errors or room for improvement for the user to fix - then, as a matter of opinion, job well done.

That's a bit different than saying morphing is bad. However, when done "badly" - it certainly doesn't help someone struggling with adopting the framework that allows for this.

So, I take a slightly different take on this. I understand a portion of the critique and I'm going to lean on that rather than challenge someone else's preferences.

... moving on.

If you want one slider to control the volume of multiple Parts then this is possible but it eats up a Part and isn't easy to program.

There was a question on what this meant. I think it's not really what was asked because later there was some feedback that the language used to describe different aspects of the instrument were misunderstood (what's an element, what's a Part, what's a Performance, etc). Therefore, I was initially answering the question as asked but the ask was off-center at least from using the correct terms. When discussing anything in a large group (in person or virtual) - it's often best to agree on some common terms so we're all on the same page. In music (I'm talking about the practice room with the other band members, not here) - there's certain language. In the military there's an alphabet soup of acronyms. Common terms in business settings, etc. If we mix up the terms - then it's easy to get off track. And, to be transparent, I often relate to music in a less technical way more like colors and shapes. I constantly need to reorient what's inside my head which are not common agreeable terms to the music theory ones. So I understand how there's a certain amount of "watering down" that happens -- but that's what we do.

Since the multiple Part thing is not necessarily going to serve the OP's question - I'll take the tangent and let it be known this is only directed to Bill's question - although probably best in a different thread. I'll be brief.

Part 1 is acoustic piano, Part 2 is FM electric piano. I want to have 1 slider control both. I cannot use Part 1 or Part 2 so I pick Part 3. It's sacrificial. Part 3 I setup as an FM-X Part (start out with "Init Normal (FM-X)" ) and change the release time to infinite. I also change to monophonic so multiple notes do not stack up for Part 3 to make it louder. I make Part 3 not velocity sensitive. I also set the frequency to fixed, not ratio, so no matter what key I press the same pitch is droned forever. Only the Part 3 slider changes the volume of this Part. I set the output to Off (default is output to Main L/R). Then in Parts 1 and 2 I setup the source as Envelope Follower 3 as the source (Part 3's envelope) and output as volume. I adjust parameters to make it more responsive and cover as wide as a sweep (from 0-127) as possible. Now slider 3 controls the volume of Parts 1&2 simultaneously. This can be extended to all Parts by setting up the same sacrificial slider Part's envelope as the source and destination as volume.

Text on a Page does not carry visual Human expression... Hand movements, facial expression, tone of voice.

The sentiment behind text can sometimes be misconstrued because of this.

Suggesting a person re-evaluate the problem by looking at it from a different perspective is "help", although I can understand why it may be construed as patronisation. To be clear, from my perspective, it is given as help.

In the case of the MODX not having a Single "Master Volume" Slider, to some people, is a problem.

A machine does not have a conscience. It cannot be gently persuaded to do something it is not designed to do.

If lack of a "Master Volume Slider" is a problem, a MODX owner has 2 Choices:-

a) Sell the MODX, buy a Synth that has a Master Volume Slider.

b) Look for an Alternative, Satisfactory and Robust solution. If none exist, then you are forced into choice a).

In this case there are probably quite a few alternate solutions.

Let's have a look at them.

1) @Jason's suggestion to employ the Envelope Follower and "burn" a Part.

2) Use an external MIDI Controller (with Sliders), with programmable SysEx capability (Target "Common/Audio Volume").

3) Use a "CV" external controller (Expression Controller) that has a Slider instead of a rocking Foot Pedal. The problem here is you still forfeit individual Part or Element "MODX Slider" function.

4) Easy... do without. The whole point of "fader panels" is their ergonomics allow a User to gradually increase or decrease all values in unison, or adjust/mix individual values.

5) Have the Audio Stereo outputs connected to a Mixer, with Sliders. Place the mixer on or near the MODX and control the Master Volume with that.

6) A Stereo Volume Pedal. Like 5), it connects in series with the Master L/R audio outputs (1/4" Phono Jacks). It is a lot cheaper than a Mixer.

7) Use a Master FX Compressor, set the Output Level to "-infinity", Control Assign this parm, then use an external MIDI CC Controller (Slider).

Personally, I use Option #4. If I wish to increase or decrease all Part Volumes simultaneously, I use the ball of my lower palm to move all Sliders at once, or one Slider per finger maintaining relative positions. The caveat is remembering to use the [1-4]/[5-8] switch.

I suppose this is how the faders were intended to be used... their "raison d'etre". Of course this requires that the Sliders have not been forfeited/overridden with Control Assigns.

Although everyone here, tries to help, all of the time, sometimes the complexity and diversity of the "answers" outstrips the relative complexity of the initial "problem".

I think it doesn't help that there are certain people here who like to hijack every thread, and morph them into a lengthy criticism of Yamaha/Product. This helps nobody. However, that is a problem, unfortunately, that nobody has an answer to.

@Antony:

No problem - I haven't seen anything "wrong" said in the thread. I was just taking a little different angle than some of what preceded. There wasn't any slam on what came before -- I just felt that some empathy would help round out the collection of points made.

Sometimes threads go sour and this one hasn't done that. It's all good. Diversity is good.

Short Answer:

all volumes of all parts (the whole Performance) to a Slider on MODX is not possible.

In fact, sadly, there are no options to use the sliders for any kind of customisation. Which is a pity, for exactly the reason you state - they offer a better feel and control for some things.

An external MIDI slider can be configured to give you what you want. But you'll need to assign all Part Volumes to one of the Performance (Common) Assign Knobs, and then control that with the remote MIDI/Sysex Slider.

In the process of assigning all the unique Part volumes to the Common (Performance) Assignable Knob, you can configure a curve, its strength and a ratio. In doing this, it might be possible to increase/decrease knob sensitivity to volume in such a way that you somewhat overcome the tangible limitations of the knob as a volume controller, for the parts of volume transition that you want more control over.

This making sense?

Want a diagram of the relationships? or better insight as to how to do this?

all volumes of all parts (the whole Performance) to a Slider on MODX is not possible.

If you want all volumes for all Parts (together) to rise or fall together then that's what the master volume slider/knob is for. An expression pedal also is an alternative.

Where the system has a deficiency, in my evaluation, is if you want to have a single slider raise/lower the volume of a group of Parts. And the natural sensical utility of this would be to have a single slider raise/lower the volume of every Part for a multi-Part instrument. As in a 3-Part piano (as a made up example). It would be nice to be able to "tell" say the first Part of this collection of Parts that the 3 Parts are linked as a single instrument and allow the 1st Part's slider (or maybe even any of the 3 Parts' sliders) to adjust the volume of all 3 Parts of this group together.

I think something like this could "bolt down" some of the architectural benefits of the Yamaha multi-Part instrument concept. If you have 4 2-Part instruments in your Performance - using superknob may become an issue.

And, although I like sliders way more than knobs for volume control (and this was a problem I had with the MOXF) - I can say that knobs are an alternative too. The common assignable knobs can be used to control the volume of any group of Parts together for simultaneous volume control. There are enough of these assignable knobs to cover any combination of multi-Part instruments in Parts 1-8 for Montage and maybe just a little more limited in MODX since you get 4 of them in front of you without pressing another button -- but still 4 covers most situations given you can at most have 4 groups of 2-Part instruments.

[quotePost id=116621]

all volumes of all parts (the whole Performance) to a Slider on MODX is not possible.

If you want all volumes for all Parts (together) to rise or fall together then that's what the master volume slider/knob is for. An expression pedal also is an alternative.

Where the system has a deficiency, in my evaluation, is if you want to have a single slider raise/lower the volume of a group of Parts. And the natural sensical utility of this would be to have a single slider raise/lower the volume of every Part for a multi-Part instrument. As in a 3-Part piano (as a made up example). It would be nice to be able to "tell" say the first Part of this collection of Parts that the 3 Parts are linked as a single instrument and allow the 1st Part's slider (or maybe even any of the 3 Parts' sliders) to adjust the volume of all 3 Parts of this group together.

I think something like this could "bolt down" some of the architectural benefits of the Yamaha multi-Part instrument concept. If you have 4 2-Part instruments in your Performance - using superknob may become an issue.

And, although I like sliders way more than knobs for volume control (and this was a problem I had with the MOXF) - I can say that knobs are an alternative too. The common assignable knobs can be used to control the volume of any group of Parts together for simultaneous volume control. There are enough of these assignable knobs to cover any combination of multi-Part instruments in Parts 1-8 for Montage and maybe just a little more limited in MODX since you get 4 of them in front of you without pressing another button -- but still 4 covers most situations given you can at most have 4 groups of 2-Part instruments.[/quotePost]

All true for the simplest of volume controlling...

...however, in the question is the word "dynamics", so I've presumed slightly more complex and nuanced needs and desires.

... the MOXF (and MOX) didn't have sliders at all. There were two buttons you pressed (in the picture) together that made the top 4 knobs turn into volume knobs and this was the replacement for sliders from previous generations. This was just one generation ago replaced now by the MODX.

During this time my MO6 took a nosedive and I had to run to buy a keyboard for a gig. I "upgraded" from the MO6 to the new MOXF6 (there was no 7 in this timeframe). Previously I rode the sliders all gig with the MO6 - pulling two sliders at a time together while pushing the other one or two sliders up. There was a lot of slider dancing. When I got the MOXF sliders were gone and the knobs couldn't be used like this. I tried to develop new ways - turning my hand sideways and pushing up/down to get one knob to turn clockwise and the other counter. However, I couldn't take it. No sliders - no dice. Back to the music store went a returned MOXF6.

This is what I mean about not liking knobs as slider replacements. So I get it.

[quotePost id=116621]Where the system has a deficiency, in my evaluation, is if you want to have a single slider raise/lower the volume of a group of Parts. And the natural sensical utility of this would be to have a single slider raise/lower the volume of every Part for a multi-Part instrument. As in a 3-Part piano (as a made up example). It would be nice to be able to "tell" say the first Part of this collection of Parts that the 3 Parts are linked as a single instrument and allow the 1st Part's slider (or maybe even any of the 3 Parts' sliders) to adjust the volume of all 3 Parts of this group together.
[/quotePost]
Exactly. That is a functionality I was astonished to learn did not exist... it's the only multi-timbral instrument I know of where there is no easy, obvious, consistent way to raise/lower the volume of one "instrument" in your group. (I assume there must be an ideascale suggestion for this?) And I'll make explicit here something else which I think your paragraph implies... that besides there being, as you said, some way to "tell" the system that a set of Parts should be treated as a single instrument, this "flag" should be pre-set for all the Yamaha-supplied multi-part instruments, so without "telling" it, the factory multi-part instruments will automatically behave this way. You'd still need to be able to set it manually if you were creating your own multi-part single instruments (or, I suppose, any sub-group of sounds you'd like to treat identically), and you may want to manually defeat it for other kinds of manipulations, but my point is that, out of the box, it seems like it would be obviously desirable be able to easily adjust the balance of the multiple "instruments" in a Performance.I understand, you can do these things with the superknob, but that's an advanced process (and also one that monopolizes the use of the superknob you might otherwise have other uses for). I don't think it's unreasonable for a new user to expect to be able to just use the sliders to control the relative volumes of the instruments in the Performance. I"m sure I wasn't the first to be surprised that I could not.

Tangentially, I think this could add another consideration to the programming/creation of multi-part single instrument sounds... something that I think may exist anyway but becomes more crucial if by design it is easy to control their levels as a group... on a deeper level, these sounds may need to be edited such that all the Parts are in correct balance with each other when their "final levels" are all identical, because (for example) raising/lowering a bunch of Parts "in unison" could get flakey at the extremes if some of the Parts were already much closer to one of the extremes to begin with. Or there would have to be some more complicated programming that could involve, for example, adjusting the multiple parts not in a linear fashion, but each one proportionally to their current level. Or maybe there's some other approach. But if one Part were much quieter than than another, and you lowered all Parts linearly, that quieter Part could completely disappear well before the louder Part of the same instrument, which I presume would typically not be desirable. I'm at the edge of my knowledge here, though, and could be missing something... I've actually never used the SuperKnob to do this, and don't know how it handles such things if you program it to adjust the levels of Parts of a multi-Part sound if they are at disparate levels to begin with.

[quotePost id=116623]... the MOXF (and MOX) didn't have sliders at all. There were two buttons you pressed (in the picture) together that made the top 4 knobs turn into volume knobs and this was the replacement for sliders from previous generations. This was just one generation ago replaced now by the MODX. [/quotePost]
You're correct about the MOXF, but the MOX did not have that feature, that was one of the really useful enhancements of the MOXF compared to the MOX.