Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
This is something that has been bugging me for quite some time now and I finally decided to put an IdeaScale suggestion about it:
https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/c/yamahasynth/idea/285254
It's about extending the effects preset system with User saved presets, so we don't have to dial our favorite settings each time parameter by parameter like we are still in the 90s!
Please help pushing Yamaha to finally bring this part of the Montage M/MODX M features to the 21st century by upvoting it!
Posted : 14/04/2026 3:01 pm
See the two identical ideas one of us submitted a year ago. We added them as 'linked' ideas to yours.
Please check out #3372 since it went even further than your suggestion:
Proper configuration of Effects, EQ and motion sequences, in particular, can require a significant effort by the user. That is especially true for users that play gigs in radically different venues where a 'one size fits all' performance just doesn't cut it.
This suggestion is to provide 'save/load' functionality that allows the user to save customized versions of effects, EQ, motion sequences, Filters, Envelopes, LFOs (parts?) for later use in different parts and performances.
Most, if not all, of this valuable info is readily available in a bulk dump of a performance or part.
For example p.241/242 of the latest 'En_G0' Data List doc shows tables '1p 00 04' and '1p 00 05' documenting the parm values for InsA and InsB for each part.
- A 'Save' for an InA effect could essentially save the on-screen info in table '1p 00 04' SysEx format
- A 'Load' could essentially execute the SysEx in a saved effect object to apply the values
A new 'Effect Name' parameter would need to be added to allow the user to name each object.
Also these new objects would need to have their own folders in the Utility data content area and be properly saved/loaded from the various library, user and backup files.
This would enable users to create custom sets of pre-configured components that could then be used when designing new parts and performances.
The core of our idea is the next-to-last comment above about extending the set of folders in the Utility data content area. Related to that would be save/load functionality for any new objects.
Another useful feature would be the ability to manipulate those new objects using SysEx: extract them, load them, alter them.
Adding this likely entails a LOT of analysis and design by the dev team since there are some larger questions involved that affect other areas of the app as well:
1. changes to the performance/part footprint to support references to user-defined objects (effects, etc)
2. changes to UI screens to support references to user-defined objects
3. additional design/implementation of external storage formats for each user-defined object type
A user-effect might be more straight-forward. As p.241 of the Data List shows table '1p 00 04' is already defined to hold the set of parameters for InsA with table '1p 00 05' for InsB. So a minimal implementation would add params for a user-defined 'name' for any saved set of parameters.
The existing tables can be used with SysEx so it should be possible to allow SysEx to be used with new 'user' tables/structures.
Bigger design/implementation issues relate to the fact that the current utility data content folders can not be manipulated/saved/restored.
See out idea #3265 from a year ago - https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/c/yamahasynth/idea/186804
That idea is still in the 'Ideate' stage.
The goal is to be able to create a backup file on an M model in one location (e.g. studio) that, when restored on a different M (e.g. at a gig) results in the 'gig' instrument being 100% functionally identical to the 'studio' instrument.
The current backup/restore has several deficiencies:
- Not all parameters/settings are saved in a backup nor restored
- Not all object types are saved in a backup nor restored
- No documentation is provided for items 1 and 2 above about what is, and is not, saved/restored in a backup file
The result of a non-identical 'gig' configuration ranges from mildly annoying to catastrophic.
It isn't clear to us what the best option is for achieving the above 100% clone capability. It seems unwieldy to try to have one 'master' (e.g. backup) file to hold everything. But if you have more than one it raises questions about how you ensure that all NEEDED files have been copied/restored.
Thanks for adding your voice to things.
Posted : 14/04/2026 4:52 pm