This podcast from Yamaha explains their process quite well and talks about the superknob behaviour, etc.:

https://soundcloud.com/yamahasynth/bts044-ben-israel-synthchat

Does it answer the question of WHY the SuperKnob has no direct connect facility to values?

It's a serious question, regardless of your thoughts on the matter, and your desire to resort to passive aggression and name calling, there are many legitimate reasons to wonder why things like this were left off the table for end users to more rapidly and intuitively create desired outcomes.

Not at all, it's pure trolling, like all you've been doing on this forum for a long time.

Brings a quote to mind: "A thief believes everybody steals".

And an angry teenager thinks he's into important stuff.

... famously the "why" questions do not get gain much traction here [edited 12/19 - thanks]. That's been directly communicated by Yamaha staff. The main role of this forum, as described by Yamaha (at least for their direct participation) is to facilitate using the features that are there already. If there's a "true" bug (and not just a difference in implementation choices) - then these are also dealt with once breaking through the necessary red tape of proof.

Questions that do not facilitate using the system or express what Yamaha agrees is a bug are left up to the forum to speculate and spin in circles. The "why" questions are not serviced. At least not officially. That doesn't mean there's not validity in the question - but it's probably best to frame a question that isn't going to get traction differently.

Humble suggestions:

1) Explain how you use the system in the official way and how this presents a specific problem (or problems) for your usage
2) Propose an enhancement to the feature-set to realize the improvement you would be interested in and how that improvement solves some issue
3) This kind of thing is probably best posted to Ideascale although I sometimes I start here if I'm not sure my "idea" is coming from ignorance of a feature or not. And I also enjoy some amount batting around the idea to see how it lands as a sort of peer review even though this also would do fine on Ideascale itself.
4) Don't expect anything. The system is a bit message-in-a-bottle. Some make it somewhere meaningful - some have an exciting travel but sink to the bottom - some bottles seem to have empty notes. You never really know. Just for your own sanity - I would have a low expectation because you're one of many voices in this idea exchange.

Now every once and a while Yamaha does leak out a "why". Sometimes on the forum - mostly when not asked - and I've seen many of these "inside" discussions fall out of the tech talks or other "media" released by Yamaha. These are rare and not indicative that anything will change in Yamaha's servicing of "why" questions here.

@Jason

Why, in technical products, is almost always answerable with limitations of one or more of:

- the programming team
- the technology's structures
- time available before launch
- creative vision/insight/care
- perception of user needs and/or abilities

It is only the last one that ideascale can ever help with, but that's not significantly the case because of the compounding nature of the points above it and the reasoning behind using such a service. IdeaScale postings (and all the other variations on this approach) serve as user placation, distraction and obfuscation. And it works, judging by the mantras repeated here by folks that should know better.

In this case, it looks like the 'why' of bypassing direct SuperKnob control was a self imposed limitation of the technological structure, probably created by the limitations of the programming team's insights into UX, combined with a rationality of incorrect presumptions of user abilities and needs. Obviously, that's a guess.

What's less of a guess: Yamaha has clearly chosen to NOT* elevate anyone to a deified project manager status across many of their product ranges, and this seems to be part of their corporate belief/process, such that it's spreading blame and responsibility in the broadest ways possible, leading to generic products with increasingly gimmicky signature features. Internally they're probably mostly happy to have found a way to create a moderately stable workforce and internal politicisation of positions and hierarchy, etc. This process probably started in the late 90's as a result of the economic crisis in Japan and an increasing reliance on the USA live music market to exploit brand cache for easy, reliable revenue.

It's hard to imagine Yamaha is anything much more than a slow moving train heading towards a broken bridge, without anyone of authority trying to figure out if there are other track options, despite the fact that the entire company can see that the bridge is broken.

The great shame, to me, of the Superknob is that it's a gimmick superglued on top of a good idea (Motion Sequencer), and not far from being much less gimmicky with a modicum of consideration for the workflow and empowerment of users not experts in tedium.

I know this will never happen, regardless of any endeavours by any number of users, anywhere, anyhow. Nothing is able to steer a train, and the track switch boxes are all empty, those folks having long ago retired to the hillier districts of Japanese cities.

But it would be nice to know, for sure, why they thought this wonderful little gimmick shouldn't be both more direct and more immediately fun, empowering and creatively exploitable.

*there's a NOT missing from your post above, first line

ANTONY: Imagine there is NO Superknob ...
Q: I have assigned multiple parameters to each of the 8 Assignable Knobs. I have realised when I am playing live on stage, it is impossible to reach and turn all the knobs I need, to all the values I need... and stay in time with the band. Is there a way to automate this into a single knob?

A: In this Scenario, No, because we have assumed we don't have a Superknob (like every other keyboard Synth except the MODX and Montage)

I liked your post! But to be fair, there are other boards that have a similar ability to allow a single physical control to simultaneously alter many functions ("turn numerous knobs" ). The "morph" capability on the Nord Stage series does this, and I'm pretty sure you can do something similar on the Kurzweil workstations as well. Though the Superknob (when operated directly, and not via pedal) provides an "endless" controller for this purpose, which is at least one way I believe it is unique.

ANTONY: Imagine there is NO Superknob ...
Q: I have assigned multiple parameters to each of the 8 Assignable Knobs. I have realised when I am playing live on stage, it is impossible to reach and turn all the knobs I need, to all the values I need... and stay in time with the band. Is there a way to automate this into a single knob?

A: In this Scenario, No, because we have assumed we don't have a Superknob (like every other keyboard Synth except the MODX and Montage)

I liked your post! But to be fair, there are other boards that have a similar ability to allow a single physical control to simultaneously alter many functions ("turn numerous knobs" ). The "morph" capability on the Nord Stage series does this, and I'm pretty sure you can do something similar on the Kurzweil workstations as well. Though the Superknob (when operated directly, and not via pedal) provides an "endless" controller for this purpose, which is at least one way I believe it is unique.

Fair point, I am not so familiar with any other KB other than MODX. Although I have seen posts here from other KB users (Korg, Roland etc) asking whether Yamaha produce an external "MIDI Controller" type hardware version of the Superknob... implying similar functionality is not available to them.

Just while I am here, the whole Notion of this thread does not really make sense to me.

The Superknob is a feature/function that works "how it is supposed to work". It is fit for purpose and it is innovative (i.e. currently new, meaning future keyboards may employ further refinements). Such is the way of "innovation" for any product in any industry.

"Mark ii" versions are typically "better" than "Mark i" versions. But rarely do people complain that "Mark i" was an egregious oversight. Typically good innovation is acclaimed, and thus the innovation survives into successive "Marks". It is typical product evolution.

Complaining that the designers of the "Mark i" should have known better serves no purpose. Remember, if there was no "Mark i" there would/should be no reason to complain or vilify because the complainer would have no notion that such a product could even exist.

There is a saying in the UK... "Give an Inch, and someone will demand a Yard". Case applies here.

This makes about as much sense as buying a new car, then complaining it only has one Steering Wheel, and arguing a Second Steering Wheel for the Passenger Side was required.

Why? "So my wife can take over driving when I'm tired on long trips". Or "I frequently travel between UK and France where they drive on different sides of the road".

So there may be "validating" reasons from the individual user's perspective. But, those reasons being so inordinately small and peculiar, and, with simple workarounds, that they do not justify re-design of the product or warrant complaint.

My philosophy... don't sweat the small stuff, you'll give yourself a heart attack.

Antony, you've missed the obvious, as did Yamaha: that the SuperKnob can be super for all properties/parameters, not just assignable knobs.

Though I'm not sure they missed it, more likely, from all the materials available, it seems to have been a deliberate "abstraction" of access to SuperKnob via Assignable Knobs, out of some misplaced fear (or programmatic and design limitations) that's probably, by now, something they can overcome.

They themselves have "admitted" the flaw in the original workflow by providing some auto-magic insertion of Assignable Knobs when wanting to do an "immediate" connection between values via assignment. And that the first/initial workflows were both tedious and unintuitive (and undiscoverable). However, as Jason's pointed out several times, this has its own raft of limitations, not least of which is that the number of assignments becomes an issue quite quickly, for the Assignable Knobs.

And, as I've pointed out, there's an equivalent that should have made the operational ideal obvious - that of the Mod Wheel's easy assignment as a pseudo Super Knob for individual values.

As to what other synths have these kinds of macro and master controllers, there's a lot of them. Even many modulation matrices have the ability to overload, such that they're functionally equivalent to the SuperKnob.

The real point of difference is the Motion Sequencer and its integration with the controllers. It's also a few steps from being intuitive, discoverable and less tedious.

But it's highly unlikely anywhere near the programming talent required to rework any of these things is being pointed at the Montage/MODX.

So we're left to merely wonder "why?"

Perhaps, with the chip shortages and economic depression, inflation and interminable lockdowns and restrictions, Yamaha will find some way to justify reinvigorating and significantly updating the Montage/MODX.