It must be a major issue for Yamaha to solve this problem. I cannot imagine that they fail to understand the problem, but still the solutions they come up with are not even close to sufficient.

There's more than one remaining open ideascale thread to vote on for this feature.

Unfortunately, one of the "behind the synth" podcasts mentioned that architecturally achieving user-defined MIDI receive channels was a non-starter due to the (and I paraphrase) "house of cards" that the current system is built upon. Not that it couldn't be done - but it seems engineering has reported back that too many items depend on fixed channels and moving these around would cause more problems than it fixes.

As time goes by - harder issues (can) become easier - at least more time to drum up a creative solution. As long as attention isn't diverted by something else (another product line, early work on the successor, or just more "appealing" features). But given the messaging from Yamaha (alluded to above - and spelled out below) I'm pessimistic. Doesn't mean you can't wish for it.

It was surprising that hybrid mode was touted as addressing the needs. It doesn't address having 4 multi-PART instruments on 4 MIDI channels - one per multi-PART instrument. This is the generic need - the ability for multiple instances of a single channel mapping to more than one PART. This would allow for Karma to be supported (like Karma for Motif) and would allow more flexibility in using low zone-count MIDI controllers.

I would have rather seen a response that recognizes hybrid doesn't address all use cases - but may help some. And that for the other valid uses - architecture has painted Yamaha in a corner that prevents realizing the request. That is, if this is the case.

Here's the source for validation that architecture is painted into a corner - https://soundcloud.com/yamahasynth/bts020-manny-fernandez-and-the-vl1-part-2

Slight paraphrase to edit "ums" and false starts - At timestamp (7:41):

And to your point we even run into this situation with Montage it comes up. People want to know, "Why can't I assign the receive channel?" It's a similar thing because of all of the modulation matrix inside of [Montage]. It would make the experience far worse than just not having freely assignable receive channels. You get into this system where you have these possibilities that you're going to break it. It's not going to work. It's not going to be fun.

That's as close as "the real deal"/official answer to this request as I've seen or heard anywhere. First commented on many months ago when the podcast was published.

I fully agree with the need to allow the free allocation of MIDI input channels in each part.

But unfortunately I am very pessimistic about it since it seems that Yamaha is determined to destroy the more sophisticated aspects of the MIDI protocol because they are expensive to implement.

The main MIDI targets to eliminate are:

1) Bank Select & Program Changes.
They require very fast processors & memories and high bandwidth circuits so that delays in loading programs are not noticed and Yamaha is not willing to do this.
Additionally, it would make a fool of Steinberg's system for searching for programs (Media bay)

2) Pitch Bend Wheel.
Using high definition potentiometers and circuitry so that digital quantization is not noticeable is another thing Yamaha is unwilling to invest in.

3) Allowing the free assignment of input MIDI channels to each part would imply retracing the entire ideological discourse around the fact that the MIDI automation of sequences loading the data in the header of each MIDI file belongs to an "old school" out of fashion.
How else to explain all the nonsense that the marketing agents of the company have published in this and several other forums about the obsolescence of this "old" way of working.
What really happens is that they are trying to "fence a territory" preventing users from comparing advantages and disadvantages between different brands and models.
We must remember that EVERYTHING that can be done with multipart programs could be done identically with keyboards that have good Polyphonic Aftertouch sensors, but that is something of the missing link.

4) Finally, there is the intention of imposing with "forceps" the new standard of MIDI protocol v2.0, for which it is necessary to previously disqualify the previously established ways of working since the new standard is for the purposes of musical creation quite useless and artificially complex

MIDI 2.0 would help controller resolution due to larger register sizes for controllers (32 bit). Even though currently there's more resolution than Yamaha's using - but still, MIDI 2.0 further increases the resolution of PB and many other controllers (including velocity). And it's backwards compatible with 1.0 (it doesn't replace 1.0). So it doesn't inherently disqualify any legacy past MIDI standards.

Complex or not, MIDI 2.0 provides a framework for an even more expressive instrument and also provides more of a "plug and play" approach where connected devices can advertise configuration. Similar, in paradigm, to how USB class devices "just work" without any need for a user to setup, load drivers, etc.

Unfortunately, one of the "behind the synth" podcasts mentioned that architecturally achieving user-defined MIDI receive channels was a non-starter due to the (and I paraphrase) "house of cards" that the current system is built upon. Not that it couldn't be done - but it seems engineering has reported back that too many items depend on fixed channels and moving these around would cause more problems than it fixes.

I just listened to their comments. It sounded more to me like they were saying that the user interface for the feature would be a nightmare, not that internal design decisions and made it impractical. Just a thought, I could easily be wrong about that.

Good to see this idea is trending again!

https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Free-allocation-of-midi-channels-in-Montage-Midi-IO-mode-multi/255776-45978

Thank you for voting!