I haven't ever heard a rompler do a great sax core sound. Sax is better done by a saxophone player.

I've heard SWAM (modeled saxophones) and that sounds better due to the wider range of articulations and enhanced controls. In the digitized world - that technology is the most convincing I've heard thus far.

However, if you're stuck with Montage covering the sax part - there's still something you can do to make the lines sound better - not by a mile - but maybe a few more feet. I would invest in a wind controller and use it in order to more naturally get the dynamics and also to more easily kick in say the growl tone (lean head back or some such gesture).

There may be a slight learning curve - but it will eventually be easier to get the dynamics down.

The built in sax sounds I believe have vibrato sampled in. The alto samples have a "Vb" waveform implying that the others maybe do not have vibrato. The tenor waveforms do not have a "Vb" waveform which sort of suggests they all have vibrato. Vibrato works against you since it should be used for spice - and not the main ingredient. The sax player in the video doesn't use too much vibrato. This is a case of - if you don't have the option for non-vibrato - then there's not much you can do about it.

The sax in the video is an alto - so maybe that's "better". However, I find the core sound of alto samples to generally be of a lower "convincing" quality than tenor samples.

That's a good question. Same for pedal steel, bag pipes, any acoustic or brass instrument. For decades nobody has been able to pull it off until Osmose. It doesn't currently have one exactly but has the tools necessary which is MPE. I've gotten a good pedal steel and strings and pipes and awesome hybrid stuff that's as close as anything without an MPE AWM2 or Genos creation with full implementation which Yamaha has yet to produce in an affordable and modern offering. They could attempt it but might not think it feasible. Each finger must become it's own envelope same as any acoustic player can do in real time.

I'm just getting my feet wet with the Eagan Matrix but I'm sure a sax is coming in that regard. Just need luck or magical programming to unlock it. It's the only system I know of that is capable in a keyboard hardware w/software form factor. I can essentially replace a string section with my two Osmose units. Believe it or not the Osmose is 3-layer multitimbral but not advertised as such yet. That's some serious musical prowess and still cheaper than renting an orchestra. I suppose I can set up 6 Osmose instruments layered and controlled with one. It has a MIDI issue currently where it controls perfectly but can't be controlled correctly for some odd reason where it drops out 6 random notes across the 49 keys. I'm working on it but I assume it's just not finished yet. It's dumb because the MIDI data is clearing streaming DSP in MPE data so not sure why the Osmose rejects 6 notes incoming. Any ideas? I've posted it all over YOUTUBE with no replies even from Expressive E.

There's a video of Chris Stainton playing steel guitar using a Motif XS and sounds pretty darn great. I'm not sure what sounds are being used - internal, heavily modified internal, or an add-on library. However, whatever was done in terms of technique and sound could be duplicated 100% on Montage/MODX given the keyboards have so much overlap.

I think probably there's a foot controller here that handles the volume to handle different attacks.

https://youtu.be/Bv1nMXk9suQ?t=97

This video gave me some hope for dialing in my own pedal steel sound at some point. The instrument itself only gets you probably less than half way there. The rest is up to developing "the right' techniques based on familiarity of the tools at hand and also based off of familiarity with the instrument you're trying to mimic. "Worse" keyboardists that also play guitar with proficiency are more likely to lay down a convincing guitar line than a "better" keyboardist that doesn't have the same depth of guitar background. Of course there cannot be a huge gap between the "worse" and "better" keyboardist in terms of keyboard-only technique. This applies to saxophone or any other instrument mimicked.

BTW: the relatively "cheap" Osmose becomes kind of expensive when you layer 6 of them together. Not that there is parity in functionality - but cost does start to dominate once you get above whatever your (plural) personal threshold is.

this seems to be a subject that can be developed by working on it for a long time. thanks for the answers.

"6" meaning only (2) Osmose units each layering (3) instruments internally to equal 6 total. (2) will run you around $3,600 plus tax. Having a second is also handy for a controller for Iridium desktop or other MPE modules. Osmose actually plays regular non-poly & non-aftertouch boards better and you can assign the aftertouch to other parameters. Having (2) is optimum but at least get one because although it has existed as parts of similar products this has never before existed as it is currently which is worth both respect and for everyone to experience as a work of engineering and art. I keep saying that if Yamaha produced this exact same unit it would cost us $5000 easy. The fact that it's affordable is beyond reality. I'm comparing it to CP1, CS80, VL1, Electone, DX1 etc. where Yamaha charges an extravagant fee for "Revolutionary gear" and sure they trickle down to things like the CK but that takes a long, long, long time. Yamaha knows all about every technology known to man but "revolutionary" isn't coming on day one from Yamaha for under $2K in any Yamaha world we know of. What would be today's equivalent price for the DX7 had it just hit the market today as revolutionary? What $6K? The Osmose is essentially 1/3rd the cost in comparison for what it can do. The miracle to me isn't so much the Osmose as it is the price for it. Some people sacrificed a lot going back to the 80s for this to happen today.

Maybe I'm off base and it only costs $600 per unit to manufacture but even so they beat the mess out of everyone else to make it actually happen. That actually makes everyone else look far less impressive if they accomplished this for nothing. So we have boat loads of really crappy, dull, boring, 2/3 sensor dead-key keybeds all over the planet. Every time we spend a small fortune on a new synth we get another set of dead-key crappy keybed keys. Now tally that up over the last 40 to 50 years all the ones you personally have bought. That's a lot of buying the same identical thing over and over again. Why are we just now getting something we should have had all along? Heck most boards I've bought don't even have poor grade aftertouch on them or even a respectable amount of key sensors. Guess we never demanded it however the aftershock of Osmose will demand companies get serious and toss out crappy keybeds and related mechanisms they have regurgitated for decades at a premium & repeated cost to us. Even ancient MIDI standards can handle the MPE data flow.

I'm certainly glad I lived to experience this but conversely kind if angry keyboard players haven't had this capability for decades now in thousands of recordings. In many ways the EaganMatrix engine by Haken Audio also made this possible. Software has been around forever and the computer synth in a box like Oasis, then Kronos but pulling the pieces together just never happened. Roli and others created new interfaces that never felt totally natural for traditional players. IF all we are using keyboards for is backup voices it really doesn't matter but if synth artists want to take center stage ahead of guitar players this is the technology that can achieve that task.

Ok - my mistake. I read layering 6 Osmose instruments together as representing the physical keyboard and not the sounds which each gets 3. I initially ran the calculation and saw 5 times 3 equals 15 (which is less than 16) and 6 times 3 equals 18 (greater than 16) and figured 6 Osmoses were to get at least 16 "tracks" (sounds).

Two is certainly less of a pocketbook hit than 6.

... side note: I tried yesterday and today to send a response but the message board got stuck replying when I used greater than, less than, and equal signs.

[quotePost id=122440]Ok - my mistake. I read layering 6 Osmose instruments together as representing the physical keyboard and not the sounds which each gets 3. I initially ran the calculation and saw 5 times 3 equals 15 (which is less than 16) and 6 times 3 equals 18 (greater than 16) and figured 6 Osmoses were to get at least 16 "tracks" (sounds).

Two is certainly less of a pocketbook hit than 6.

... side note: I tried yesterday and today to send a response but the message board got stuck replying when I used greater than, less than, and equal signs. [/quotePost]

and Mr Jason 🙂 I am waiting for a synth lead preset from you under the title ^mono synth leads.... first note and other legato notes sound diffrecences^. 🙂