From the home screen click on the performance name. Then choose the menu item info. Keep in mind I'm doing this from memory so could be Properties or something similar. The screen will show you the MSB LSB and program number of your performance.

The following details only apply to firmware version 2.0. the details would be different for earlier firmware.

The MSB is always going to be 64. The LSB is the key piece of information to determine the library number. If the performance is contained within a library the LSB will be between 40 decimal and 79 decimal. By decimal I mean base 10 instead of hex.

So if the LSB is between 40 and 79 then subtract 40 so you have a number between 0 and 39. Take this number and divide by 5. You know I have a number between 0 and 7. Add one to this number. Now you have a value between 1 and 8. This is your library number

That’s not what I was asking about. What I want is the slot number for the libraries in this display. I need the number so that I can load a particular library into John Melas’ Total Librarian.

Under Category search, Bank select.
They are in order(I believe).
So the first Lib Slot #1 is the one after the User bank. Next slot is #2
I loaded my Lib's in a certain order. Because I found out. A user file From 1.6 Cannot find the lib.
Unless it is in the exact same Slot as before OS 2.0.

The best way to ensure your Library Data is restored is to use the BACKUP File (.X7A). It will ensure all your Library Data is restored as you had it.

Each LIBRARY can be at maximum: 640 Performances, 2,048 Waveforms, 256 Arpeggios, 256 Motion Sequences, 32 User Curves, 2,048 Live Set slots, 8 Micro tunings.
The Programs are numbered 001-128... Therefore, like the User area, each Library is five Banks of 128 Programs.

Using Bank Select command to recall the entire MULTI PART Performance (all Parts recalled together)...
your 640 Performances of LIBRARY 1 occupy the five Banks of 128 Programs each:
MSB/LSB 64/40
MSB/LSB 64/41
MSB/LSB 64/42
MSB/LSB 64/43
MSB/LSB 64/44

Your 640 Performances of LIBRARY 2 occupy the five Banks of 128:
MSB/LSB 64/45
MSB/LSB 64/46
MSB/LSB 64/47
MSB/LSB 64/48
MSB/LSB 64/49

Your 640 Performances of LIBRARY 3 occupy the five Banks of 128:
MSB/LSB 64/50
MSB/LSB 64/51
MSB/LSB 64/52
MSB/LSB 64/53
MSB/LSB 64/54

Your 640 Performances of LIBRARY 4 occupy the five Banks of 128:
MSB/LSB 64/55
MSB/LSB 64/56
MSB/LSB 64/57
MSB/LSB 64/58
MSB/LSB 64/59

And so on .... through to LIBRARY 8:
MSB/LSB 64/75
MSB/LSB 64/76
MSB/LSB 64/77
MSB/LSB 64/78
MSB/LSB 64/79

If a program slot is not filled - there is no “placeholder” data in that location (as with previous models, like Motif)... the empty location is just skipped. So if you have the Bosendorfer data loaded into LIBRARY 1, you will be occupying the first 16 locations of 64/40 PC 001-016... if no other Programs are added, incrementing from 64/40 PC# 016 will land you at LIBRARY 2 which is 64/45 PC 01.

The LIBRARY listings are shown alphabetically (Name) or by Size, not by the order you installed them necessarily. Because Libraries can be DELETED, and Performances can be DELETED, all management of the data storage is handled by MONTAGE.

The best way to ensure your data is put back where it belongs is to use the BACKUP (.X7A) File format.

It is what you're asking about. First you load any performance inside any of your libraries then look at the properties and do the math.

The answer you get tells you the library number of the library that performance was loaded from.

Or you can skip the math and just realize that lsb as 40-44 is library 1, LSB as 45-49 is library 2, and so on.

It would have probably been more user friendly for Montage to list library names as "L1: Chick Corea", "L2: Blue Man Group" .... where L1 means library number 1. Yes, it's redundant but makes the association less ambiguous and saves from menu diving to check for similar information.

I believe one runs into issues when trying to *fit* a previous workflow onto MONTAGE. Just a thought, but I think the concept of removing the management of the individual “Voices” (as in the Motif-series type Multi-timbral synthesizer) is what gets most people hung up.

In Montage, while you can recall any program, via Bank Select/PC, as an individual as long as it exist as a Single Part Performance; it is pretty clear the design concept is around the Performance, as a fundamental entity, to be the recallable item... particularly because of the interaction between Parts linked via KBD CTRL. To serve the concept of the *linked Parts*, the Performance that recalls multiple Parts as a group, is a fundamental.

MONTAGE CONNECT as a utility is designed to capture the entire 16 Part setup as you have it configured, be it as:
A Single Part Performance
A Multi Part Performance, doing separate instruments some under Arp or Motion Control, some direct
A Multi Part Performance, all Parts as components recreating a single instrument
A traditional 16 Part/16 Channel setup (Multi/GM type)
A combination of one Multi Part (KBD CTRL) and several individual Part instruments under external control
Etc.

And while you can address each individual Part (it seems to be there to give it a viable connection to this legacy method, a holdover from the Old Workstation days) each with its own Bank Select and PC...

MONTAGE can focus the full power of its two synthesis engines on synthesizing new interactive sounds. With its extensive audio routing system you can capture this magic in glorious 24-bit detail via 32 highly configurable audio out buses... those still using Midi as an interim step between germ-idea and finished product are, I would imagine, learning a new set of rules; particularly after encountering MIDI data as generated in MONTAGE.

What you find out... The need to edit events diminishes and the rules change as to start to think about how best to capture your performance. In other words, you find that when changing multiple parameters simultaneously, like when using the Assign Knobs and Super Knob, editing the result if/when you don’t like something, is now LESS about the event list, and MORE about editing the synthesizer (hurray!) once you start to realize this —and it takes some time working inside MONTAGE— the concept becomes clearer. (Perhaps).

If you are performing a MONTAGE acoustic guitar, or orchestral brass ensemble, some of your performing gestures may involve a controller that is mapped to multiple destinations, given that you can scale the response meticulously to each destination... Editing the controller gesture may no longer get you the result you need. Perhaps you need to adjust the response of one of the synth parameters to the recorded gesture. Yes, you tweak the sound to get the appropriate behavior! Ah yes, a synthesizer....

But I guess the concept of recalling 16 Parts with a single Bank Select/Program Change versus the GM style protocol of individual Bank Select/Program Changes per Channel is what is perplexing for some.

The problem outlined in this thread boils down to 3rd party enablement as well as hardware ease-of-use.

There's software that refers to libraries. The software interface is MIDI. Either the documentation is not clear or no function exists for 3rd party software to resolve the Libraries (1-8) by Library name. Therefore, they refer to Libraries by number instead. Meanwhile, the hardware is oriented for the user to associate with Libraries by name over number.

There is a way to get to the Library number - it takes a few steps and is not the most "user friendly" procedure - although not the most complex either. It would be nice to have more alignment between hardware and software so when software tells a user to find a "duck" - the user doesn't have to first look for "elephants" in order to make a pathway to the "duck". For this particular use, the system is more aligned to scuba-divers than top swimmers. The software support targets both and is not clearly a scuba-diver only "thing".

There are some ways to bridge the gap. I'm not sure that paradigm shifts (getting stuck in a Motif mentality) is the issue here. There are many compromises software has to make because USB does not appear to be a mechanism for transmitting information that would otherwise be contained within an .X7L (.X7U) file -- ignoring the sample data although I'm sure users would also like to someday use something like Samplebot and also do system backups (X7A) without needing a USB stick and go direct to the PC through the USB link. USB2.0 will get long in the tooth at some point and marketing pressure will make USB3 (or higher) more ubiquitous. Increased bandwidth should cause some rethink channel utilization such that perhaps "big data" items can be transferred through USB vs. what is done today.

In the meantime, I think there are some things that can be done on the interface side to help users. The file system traditionally has usability hurdles for Yamaha flagships. I see other parts of the GUI receiving thought surrounding how to facilitate the user experience. There was no real need to make source assignments easier - all the hooks were there to fully assign. If the user just adopted the workflow of what was given in previous firmware - they would meet with success. It's not necessarily (always) a lack of understanding why you make things easier. It's also to reduce the steps to make your sound engineering or programming job more efficient so you can spend more time on the musical side. This can also help self-document to diminish the need for support for certain features.

To BadMister:

"editing the result if/when you don’t like something, is now LESS about the event list, and MORE about editing the synthesizer (hurray!) once you start to realize this —and it takes some time working inside MONTAGE— the concept becomes clearer."

This is wy I ask in another post if Yamaha can made a full implementation of Midi controlers when playing/recording in single channel mode (as in multi mode but by SysEx).
So just correcting playing mistakes in Midi in one channel and lets Montage generators, eventually tweaking it, reinterpret all. Does this make sens to you ?

This is wy I ask in another post if Yamaha can made a full implementation of Midi controlers when playing/recording in single channel mode (as in multi mode but by SysEx).
So just correcting playing mistakes in Midi in one channel and lets Montage generators, eventually tweaking it, reinterpret all. Does this make sens to you ?

I don’t understand much of what you have written. So no, it doesn’t make sense to me. Sorry.

Just want to say, when playing in single channel mode, moving faders in common mode generate no midi messages, moving knobs in part mode (a part is selected) generate no midi messages.

So I cannot use these controllers while recording in a DAW.

But no matter

That is partially correct.

Using the MONTAGE in MIDI I/O Mode = Single would be done when you only want to record the actual notes you press on the Keys. As strange as that sounds... what it means is if you are using any Arpeggios, the note data of those Arpeggios do NOT go out via MIDI... ONLY the actual notes you press on the keyboard are Output via MIDI.

This means, if you have multiple Parts with some of them using Arpeggios, on playback you will need to reset/rearm the Arpeggio On/Off, because the MONTAGE will need to actively respond by recreating the Arp data. Not sure why you are using Single as your Midi I/O Mode... but...

If you are using the MONTAGE in MIDI I/O Mode Single, and want to control a Multi Part Performance please recognize that all Parts are on the same MIDI Channel. PART VOLUME, as sent normally by the Fader, is a Channel Message... so quite naturally, the Faders do not send individual Part Volume (cc007) changing any one of them would change all of them... n’est pas?

Seems simple... multiple Parts, and you want multiple control, MIDI I/O Mode = Multi.

If, for whatever reason, you need to control an individual Part’s Volume while set to MIDI I/O = Single, use the Super Knob Control Matrix to manage Part Volumes as a directly controlled parameter. If you provide a bit more info on what you’re trying to accomplish I’m sure there is a solution.

The PART AssignKnobs can be linked to the Super Knob’s COMMON AssignKnobs... The Common AssignKnobs can directly move the Part’s AssignKnob and you can use these to adjust individual Part Volume when on a single MIDI channel.

Don’t say “no matter”, this is MONTAGE, there is likely a way... depends on what you’re doing. Let us know.

Ok

I am trying to explain what I want doing.

But, please, keep in mind I have a bad english, I use transaltor, dico, and I don't always know if my sentence is correct or make sens.
So say me if a sentence have no sens for you, I will try to rephrase.

First I think I understand what you are saying about volume confusion when playing in single mode channel a multipart (multi channel) performance.
I know CC is channel dependant and this why I ask, or I hope a day, Yamaha implement for single mode channel control volume by sysex (not channel dependent as you know).

For exemple knob controling FEG Depth send sysex, so no problem, in single mode channel, to control FEG Depth part by part.

Conversely knob controlling Cutoff send CC and, in single mode channel, I can't adress individual part.

I understand the workaround of using super knob and knobs in common mode (sending sysex) to control part's knobs (using CC) or part's volume. But this is a workaround and I lose the total number of possible knobs in multi mode.

But most important, why I want to use single mode.

When I play/compose on Montage, I record on DAW in Midi for, eventually, correcting or rearranging what I have play, that is keyboard, pedals, ribbon, and all physical controller I can play.

I don't want to correct what arpeggiators or other generators produce.

Because I think it is more profitable to modify the generator on Montage, that is a parameter of arpegiattor or even a new modified arpeggio or modify a motion sequence than trying to correcting what it is generated in event list by arpegiattor, etc.

So, for correcting what I have played in multi mode, say for controlling a performance with eight part with no arpeggio, I have to edit eight time the same thing.

This is why I want to play in single mode, for easy editing what I play. Not what Montage produces with what I play. For that as you have said I have to modify on Montage not on Midi.

On a final note, I like Yamaha arpegiattor and the rich sound we can obtain with SortDirect or ThruDirect mode.

And as you know no sequencer (integrated or external) can correctly record these arpeggios (this is "chaos" to use your words).
So I don't want to record, in Midi not audio !, what the arpegiattor generates.

This is why I want to use single mode channel for playing and controlling multi part performance.

And why i have made this request of considering a full implementation of controllers by sysex in single mode.

This is a wish and this is why I say 'no matter'.

Actually I play and record in multi mode, Arp midi out Off, local on, and I record what a play on Moxf by affecting 8 tracks on Sonar sending respectively on 8 channels to Montage, recording controllers of Montage on a separate multi channel track, and I spend a little time when editing 8 times what a I have play in Midi but 'no matter'.

I hope I was a little more understandable.

I understand the workaround of using super knob and knobs in common mode (sending sysex) to control part's knobs (using CC) or part's volume. But this is a workaround and I lose the total number of possible knobs in multi mode.

I disagree completely... it is not a "workaround" it is a viable way to work... directly. The AssignKnobs will be sending CC17-24, not Sysex. You are using them for Direct control.

What are you doing that you "lose the total number of possible Knobs"... why save them? That is what they are for, use them. Besides a single Knob can make multiple scaled changes to multiple Parts!

Please tell me what you are doing that you don't have enough Knobs to control your Part volumes... if you use them all good, a happy Knob is one that has a function... that has something to do. What are you saving them for?

Did you know.... a single Assign Knob can change multiple Parts simultaneously, and you can change each sound a different amount? A single Common AssignKnob can turn one Part up by a lot, another Part a completely independent amount, and yet another it could be turning down, I can put all eight Parts on a single Common Assign Knob, and when I moved that Knob each Part would change precisely as I design. That is the power of the Control Matrix. I could even have a Part get louder then softer while the others changed as programmed.

This is what I mean when I say *editing* is not going to be limited to just editing Events like CC messages or Sysex messages in your MIDI Track, but rather editing a Performance will be working in the synthesizer. If you love editing Sysex or cc messages you still can, but by editing the synth's Assign Knobs via the Curve, Polarity, Ratio, and Parameter 1 you can turn a few Knobs into your entire mix controls. Trust me!
Yes, it is perhaps a new way to work, of course, that is what MONTAGE is introducing... new ways to work!

[ quote]So, in multi mode, for correcting what I have played in multi mode, say for controlling a performance with eight part with no arpeggio, I have to edit eight time the same thing.

What? Why would you do that? You are again, working backwards... if you're playing eight Parts, with no Arpeggios, what's your purpose in recording MIDI I/O Mode = Multi. Doesn't it make sense to just record one Track? That would be a perfect time to use Single. (I think maybe you are having fun with me as you seem to do the opposite of what you should... is it a joke? Are you having fun with me?

Multi Parts doing different things (i.e., Arps) use MIDI I/O Mode = Multi
Multi Parts doing just the same thing use MIDI I/O Mode = Single (unless you like editing the same data eight times, that's just silly, n'est pas?) maybe that sentence is an exaggeration, please don't edit eight tracks of the same data... if you find yourself doing that please STOP.

Please try learning (more) about the potential of the Assign Knobs, I think they are far, far, far more powerful than you are thinking.

It is what you're asking about. First you load any performance inside any of your libraries then look at the properties and do the math.

You're right, it was what I was asking about. I was either reading too fast or thinking too slow.

Anyway, thanks for the explanation and then pointing me back to it.