Cool idea, Darryl, but sure is a whole lot more work than if there were simply a new Performance command, "Copy to User section" 🙂

Yeah that would be the easiest way. I have a strong feeling Yamaha will never implement that functionality as they hold onto their preset waveforms so tightly.

Getting back to the 8 vs 16 parts topic, I thought it was interesting that Blake talked about how the 18-element CFX piano that took 4 Parts on the Montage takes only 1 Part on the M. In theory, the 18-element Montage implementation should only have taken up 3 parts (since 3 parts at 8 elements each gives you access to up to 24 elements). I assumed they needed 4 Parts because different elements needed to be treated differently, and in a given part, they would not have been able to treat some of the elements one way and some another, hence the need to go to a fourth part. Is that right? Because if that's so, that's another interesting wrinkle on now being able to go beyond 8 elements in a single Part... that there may now also be more flexibility (within a single part) of how those elements are treated. Yes? Sounds like a question for Jason. 🙂

You can always adjust what effects are applied 'per Element' via the "Elem Connect" setting (InsA, InsB, Thru), as well as only apply certain Assign destinations to specific Elements under Control Assign, even on the Montage classic... Maybe there are even more possibilities on the Montage M..!?

Yes, the 4 PART CFX could have been 3 PARTs is they just put the Key Off sound in either PART1 or 2

But who am I to say, as most of my pianos are 7 or 8 PARTs lol 😀

I have the 3 PARTs for the main notes, and I have an extra PART that I've customized for just the D#3 note only whereby it was a bit dull and I needed it to not be for songs like Journey's "Faithfully", so I did a Note Shift +1 in Common Pitch, and did a Fine -64 on each Element so that it's using a slightly stretched D3 note for the D#3.
I then used the Epic Grand pianos' "EG Sml Res" resonance waveform in PART5 and did an EnvFollow to an FM-X PART6, as is programmed on the Epic Grand to work with the sustain pedal (horrible C7 piano library, but has an awesome resonance effect waveform setup).
And for the Key Off note, I placed it in PART 7 with an EnvFollow to PART8 (a regular long tail piano waveform) using the Dogleg Curve Type so that after holding high velocity bass note for more than 10 seconds, the Key Off notes don't jump out a ya and maintain the correct volume that it should at that time interval... :p

I assumed they needed 4 Parts because different elements needed to be treated differently, and in a given part, they would not have been able to treat some of the elements one way and some another, hence the need to go to a fourth part. Is that right?

You make a good point in that you DO need to consider the limits of the parts themselves.

Even if one part can handle all of the elements it may not be able to handle all of the effects you want to use on some of those elements.

Since there are only 2 effects available per part that new one part performance can only use 2 effects.
But the old 4 part performance could have used 8 effects.

And a 4 part performance will have more flexibility for what sounds are used in different scenes.

So, to your point, you do have to consider how best to design the overall performance as well as the overall number and content of parts.

On the plus side you can add that new one part version of the performance to your own performances by adding just a single part instead of trying to figure out whether you need all 4 parts or 3 or 2.

More options means more brain power needed.

Maybe there are even more possibilities on the Montage M..!?

I haven't come across any yet in that area. But that is the sort of thing I am looking for first.

See my comment in my reply to AnotherScott about the consideration needed for effects.

I have the 3 PARTs for the main notes, and I have an extra PART that I've customized for just the D#3 note

But, depending on your need for effects, you might now be able to use only 1 part for those 3 parts and 1 extra part for a total of two parts.

Then you could more easily add your new 1 part (old 3 parts) to other performances.

So you now have a way to design a single part that is really 'sliced and diced' and can 'morph' into more than one sound and be able to add just ONE part into a new performance but have access
to multiple sounds.

Use elements 1-8 for one sound, 9-16 for another and so on. Then have only one set of elements be active at a time. Element definitions take up memory but only elements that are used take up polyphony.

... I assumed they needed 4 Parts because different elements needed to be treated differently, and in a given part, they would not have been able to treat some of the elements one way and some another, hence the need to go to a fourth part. Is that right? Because if that's so, that's another interesting wrinkle on now being able to go beyond 8 elements in a single Part... that there may now also be more flexibility (within a single part) of how those elements are treated. Yes? Sounds like a question for Jason. 🙂

I'm no longer an expert. Although I pick up on things quickly - I've received no advance information and haven't ever (including now) had access to an M series. The documentation is incomplete at the moment so the academic approach of answering is a bit hampered.

I yield.

Jason, just in terms of your pre-M Montage knowledge, off-hand, do you have any insight into why the 4-part CFX was set up as 4 Parts, when its 18 elements could have fit within 3 Parts? What functionality/advantage did that give them that would not have worked (or worked as well) if they had put those same 18 elements into only 3 Parts? That was really the crux of my "sounds like a question for Jason." 🙂

That's what had led me to the thought that, if they can now put all 18 elements into a single Part, and if they are not losing any functionality in doing so, then maybe a single Part can now do something that previously would have required putting some of the sound's elements into a separate part, which could imply some further interesting change to the architecture that hasn't been talked about yet.

I get it, but I have a feeling there is some compromise that has been made which can only be revealed by looking at the new implementation. Either that or looking at both will reveal some new wrinkle in element use within a single Part.

When I look at Montage Classic, the key off noise upper note limit is G5 (by the element limits, not Part limits). Part 1 already has Part-level keyboard limits ending at G5 - so moving the element from Part 4 to Part 1 (Part 1 Element 7 I think is free) then deleting Part 4 should give you an equivalent instrument as the original 4-Part CFX Concert.

I think if I really dug in I'd come up with a complete list of what cannot be done. For example, Part 4 has a bunch of Mod Control assignments as do the other Parts. And if any of these are exclusive to the Part then with 16 destinations in the old system, there may not have been enough. That said, when I move the key off element to Part 1 without worrying about anything else - I think it's essentially the same sonic result. The Montage M has twice the destinations (32 from 16 previous) so this is pretty good. Disproportional to the amount of possible new elements - but still a good thing. We'll take what we can get.

For Montage Classic: I never had a reason to look at the possibilities too closely since I would always use a 1-Part piano (like CFX Stage) and not worry about the detail lost. The new system really does a lot to up the quality of each Part for those of us who need all 8 slots under keyboard control.

The new content for Montage M has lots of multi-Part Performances. I bet there also now cases where the Part count could be reduced/optimized further to end up with a lower Part count version of the same sound.