Quoted from Andrew on Saturday, 27 May 2023

How many 'envelopes' are created when a triad is played for a performance with one part and one element? Arent the current envelope parameters shared by ALL simultaneous notes for an element?

Again, I'm not seeing the relevance of this line of thought.

What I thought was relevant is that for MPE you need to be able to control an envelope differently for each note playes.

Currently, on the Montage/Modx you can only define ONE envelope for an element, not for a single note. For MPE if you play a 3 note triad you need THREE envelopes that can have totally different attacks and other parameters.

The 'relevance' of the example Drone Generator is to show that the current FM-X engine, but not AWM-2, can already control a multitude of parameters along the lines of what MPE can do.

Yes makes sense for FM-X because it's a different technology. FM-X isn't capable of mimicking strings, flutes, guitars, brass as well as modeling and even some FM stuff on Osmose sounds better than FM-X. Not sure what they have figured out or got lucky I don't know. Seems like it can do FM, AN and VL &/or acoustic modeling without breaking a sweat. Obviously it's only doing one at a time which is what separates the two worlds. Being able to play 16 different instruments that all have MPE each might not be practically possible but only the solo instruments really need it. Doesn't seem to be able to do an exact piano but does an EP, Tine and MK2 well and the mallets are unbelievable. Maybe they will figure out an acoustic piano. Toy piano and organs were really good so I know it can do it, only a matter of time. True that MPE is only a path of MIDI control but the keys also have to be able to wiggle side to side and work better than normal after touch, whatever it is limitless sensors etc. and not bottom out like normal boards. That's a big difference is how it works mechanically not just the MPE capability. Then the Matrix engine compliments that system. Yamaha would have to pull all of that together and that I know of their keys don't wiggle side to side unless they are broken. It's a very large endeavor.

Yamaha introduced keys that added vibrato, wah-wah and resonance effects on keys as you moved them side to side, in 1974-75. Both the GX-1 Solo and Upper Manual had this capability!

Please see: “Yamaha GX1 Guide to your Yamaha Electone” — Chapter: “Control Levers of the Upper Manual” page 13
The 61-Key Upper keyboard manual featured the side-to-side key movement to apply vibrato, wah-wah (Filter cutoff) and resonance… as did the 37-miniKey Solo keyboard manual.

GX1 (“the Dream Machine”) also introduced poly-pressure (called “Second Touch”) the word “Aftertouch” was not invented yet… the GX1 had two 61-key manuals (Upper, Lower), a 37-key mini-Key Solo Manual, and a 25-key set of bass pedals.
_ Both the Upper and the Solo Keyboards featured ‘wiggle’ (side-to-side) keys to apply modulation… that’s 49 years ago, dude! It also introduced a unique Portamento controller…velocity sensitivity, among other now common synth features!

Written in 2000….
“… The GX1 Solo manual is probably the only keyboard ever built that offers three modes of touch sensitivity. First Touch is velocity sensitivity, and controls the Initial Pitch and the Attack Rate of the pitch envelope. Second Touch is pressure sensitivity, controlling pitch, brilliance, volume, and the full set of LFO parameters. Third Touch is side-to-side wiggle and, like the Upper manual, controls vibrato, wah-wah and resonance. Again, there's nothing else as playable as this, and nothing that comes closer to simulating the nuances of an acoustic instrument. And let's not forget the portamento, the speed of which you can control using... the Knee Controller!” … from Gordon Reid (Sound-On-Sound Magazine articles http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb00/articles/yamahagx1.ht m">“Yamaha GX-1 Synthesizer Part 1 and http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar00/articles/yamahagx1.ht m">”Yamaha GX-1 Synthesizer Part 2” written Feb/Mar 2000.

Yamaha made the world’s first commercially available “physical modeling” synthesizer in 1993-4 (called the VL1). The SCM (Spectral Component Modeling) found in the CP1 was introduced in 2009. The EX5 in the late 1990’s feature several types of modeling.

So things you may think Yamaha can’t or doesn’t do are stuff that they have actually already done… “been there, done that, and have the t-shirt” …as the saying goes. Stop making stuff up, please - it sounds foolish. Just saying…

[quotePost id=121931]What I thought was relevant is that for MPE you need to be able to control an envelope differently for each note playes.[/quotePost]
No you do not.

Again, don't confuse what MPE is with Osmose. Just because Osmose has a particular function (like being able to essentially adjust the envelope with initial pressure) doesn't mean that MPE requires the presence of that capability (it does not... there's certainly MPE stuff that cannot do that), nor that that function requires MPE (it does not... as I explained, it would only use MPE to do it polyphonically with independent per-note control... one could conceivably implement that same function without MPE as well, e.g. monophonically).

[quotePost id=121931]Currently, on the Montage/Modx you can only define ONE envelope for an element, not for a single note. For MPE if you play a 3 note triad you need THREE envelopes that can have totally different attacks and other parameters.[/quotePost]
Again, no you don't. Not only does MPE not need that, but AFAIK, even Osmose isn't doing what they do the way you describe. Yes, Osmose can manipulate envelope on a per key basis (again, NOT a requirement of MPE, but rather an Osmose feature), but my understanding is it's not done by having defined different envelopes for different amounts of pressure, but rather having defined envelopes with a variable which is based on pressure. But regardless, again, this is an issue completely separate from MPE, except to that extent that if you have such a feature, MPE would allow you to employ it polyphonically.

[quotePost id=121931]The 'relevance' of the example Drone Generator is to show that the current FM-X engine, but not AWM-2, can already control a multitude of parameters along the lines of what MPE can do.[/quotePost]
Again (if I understand your point correctly), what you're talkings about there is not an MPE function.

Trying to simplify the point further: The entirety of MPE boils down to one thing... take polyphonic functions which would normally apply to every note you play, and allow you to instead trigger those functions on a note-by-note basis. (It does this by assigning each note to its own MIDI channel.)

[quotePost id=121932]Being able to play 16 different instruments that all have MPE each might not be practically possible but only the solo instruments really need it. [/quotePost]
To play a single MPE instrument with 16-note polyphony would require using all 16 channels, so you would not be able to play a second instrument, unless using a system with multiple MIDI busses. But the bigger point here is that solo instruments never use MPE at all. MPE (which stands for MIDI polyphonic expression) is not applicable to solo (monophonic) sounds. Yes, of course, you can use the expressivity of the Osmose keyboard for monophonic sounds, but when you do, you're not using MPE, which only comes into play when playing polyphonically.

Again, this all seems to be coming down to conflating Osmose with MPE. They are different things. Osmose does interesting things that are not, themselves, MPE features; and MPE does not require that boards do the things that Osmose does.

Andrew/David... Another possibly worthwhile reference is at https://www.keithmcmillen.com/matrix/ which, besides discussing basic MPE functionality, also lists a variety of MPE-compatible products... which do not necessarily do all the things you seem to be thinking MPE has to be able to do.

Another good link is at https://cdm.link/2021/01/how-mpe-can-work-on-hardware-synths-a-look-at-sequential-ob-6-prophet-6-updates/

The entirety of MPE boils down to one thing . . .

It's clear from the entirety of your comments boil down to one of three things.
1. You haven't read the MPE spec
2. You don't understand the spec
3. You don't understand the difference between a spec and an implementation of the spec

Like the MIDI spec before it the MPE has nothing to do with implementation. It is concerned solely with what activities are required and/or allowed.

How those are implemented isn't addressed at all.

Please at least read the spec. Then if you have any questions about it feel free to ask.

I posted a link to the spec because you said you were not able to post a link.

Further, MPE is only one possible transport protocol for communicating the dynamic expressiveness of the Osmose, and keyboards that are now destined to spring forth with similar breadths of playable expressiveness. As David's said many times... it's a revelatory, long in the waiting, revelation.

The newly released Push 3 from Ableton has added two dimensions, too.

The depth-pressure and velocity-in-the-vertical responsiveness of the Osmose are both polyphonic, as is the "bend" left and right, as are the 2D "slides" of the Push 3. All of which is ideally used during a note's play, on individual notes. And this is where the MODX/Montage are extremely limited. They're barely polyphonically able to do much, and don't have anything intrinsically polyphonic for an external controller to get into and at, regardless of communication transport protocol used.

To BMs point the GX1 is $60,000 or so it said on Wik. The VL1 in very used condition is $5,000 will eventually need parts. The Osmose is a poor man's machine only $1,799 so price and abilities do matter. It's not that Yamaha can't or hasn't, they just can't make if affordable for the average person. The tee shirt won't play music. That is a worthy accomplishment at this price point for Osmose and company. Most players could never afford a VL1 or GX1 so it really doesn't matter. I have the CP1 here with only 15 voices and was $6,000K. It can play two instruments so I bought two Osmoses so I'm comparable and still cheaper. The Osmose is the DX7, VL1, AN1x, GX1, CP1 combined for 6% of the cost. To make the point that's pretty good I think and that's for two of them. I mean everything I have or have had has been Yamaha so I'm their biggest supporter. Can Yamaha make the Osmose equivalent for $1,799? I'd like if they attempted it in a modern form. I had the VL1 and this is 100% better. No person will go purchase a VL1 now if they can buy the Osmose so it's more of a what have you made for me lately and for how much type argument. But yes Yamaha has paved the way there's no doubt but typically has been at a premium price tag.

Most of your replies, and those of others, keep comparing apples and oranges.

Can Yamaha make the Osmose equivalent for $1,799?

Let's turn that around: Can Osmose make the Yamaha Montage/Modx equivalent for $1,799?

Maybe you only want/need 49 keys?
Maybe you only want/need 24 voice polyphony?
Maybe you don't want/need keyboard splits?
Maybe you don't want/need velocity scaling?

Those are just the OBVIOUS areas where comparing price alone is very misleading.

There is nothing wrong with being enthusiatic about a new product with new features. But it isn't
meaningful or realistic to present things as if the capabilities were on the same level.

[quotePost id=121936]Then if you have any questions about it feel free to ask.
[/quotePost]I don't have questions about it. The issue is that you're saying things like "for MPE you need to be able to control an envelope differently for each note" and "for MPE if you play a 3 note triad you need THREE envelopes that can have totally different attacks" (italics added) and these statements are simply not true... as proven by the very existence of MPE products that do not have these characteristics. Connect a KBoard Pro 4 to a Prophet 6 (as referenced in the links I provided), you'll still have a perfectly valid and usable MPE system even though it doesn't have that envelope manipulation facility you're talking about. The kind of thing you're talking about can be implemented in an MPE environment (as on the Osmose), but that doesn't mean you need these things in order to implement MPE. MPE means you can take attributes that would otherwise affect all notes and have them applied selectively to each note (it does this via assigning the notes to their own MIDI channels)... it does not specify that these attributes need to include envelope manipulations. If you don't accept that (or if I'm just not capable of explaining it clearly enough), that's fine, I'm moving on regardless.

it does not specify that these attributes need to include envelope manipulations

You don't seem to be clear on just what an 'envelope' is.

Maybe this wiki will help - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envelope_(music)

In sound and music, an envelope describes how a sound changes over time. For example, a piano key, when struck and held, creates a near-immediate initial sound which gradually decreases in volume to zero. An envelope may relate to elements such as amplitude (volume), frequency (with the use of filters) or pitch.

Envelope generators, which allow users to control the different stages of a sound, are common features of synthesizers, samplers, and other electronic musical instruments. The most common envelope generator is controlled with four parameters: attack, decay, sustain and release (ADSR).

The very essence of MPE is to allow you to dynamically express the desired envelope changes via MIDI and to do it on a per note basis rather than the current MIDI per channel basis.

MPE does this by providing a parameter to indicate that the MIDI stream uses the new format of 1 channel per note rather than the current stream format of using 1-16 channels where each note for a part is one one of 16 channels.

So 'envelope manipulation' is what MPE is all about. As I mentioned before the MPE spec is just a spec and says NOTHING about how the channel info should be used within any particular instrument or by any particular manufacturer.

An envelope is necessarily an 'object' or physical component like a speaker or microphone. It is typically created in real-time 'on the fly' usually initiated from a fixed set of parameters some, or all, of which can then be modified in real time.

In the Modx you can use Smart Morph, motion sequences and control assignmnts to dynamically manipulate pitch, filter and amplitude envelopes. You just can't do it on a 'per note' basis. That is what the MPE spec is all about.

I was pointing out that BM said Yamaha has already been there and done that not talking about the Montage at all. We're talking about the Osmose and he said Yamaha has made similar creations in the past and so I pointed out that those creations are extremely expensive in comparison. I did say it can only play only one voice so I know it's not a synth or workstation just that because Yamaha can or has done something similar they cannot do it for $1,799 based on the history of the DX7, VL1, GX1 or CP1 which are not comparable to the Montage platform of today. Obviously the Osmose is not a Fantom which can actually play a full 16 voices under the hood. Montage is a bit weaker but Fantom is newer so that make sense. I have had the VL1, DX7 and still have the CP1 but these are far more expensive (related to release $) and Osmose might be the best ever for a fraction of that cost. I have no idea why it doesn't cost $5,000 but I'm glad it doesn't. Competition is good and I can't wait to layer two of these insane machines. VL1 was what $8K I'm not sure but it did have double engines so two Osmoses' is still less and you get double the MPE keys. I'm sure almost all Yamaha upper levels have an Osmose including BM by now. Probably playing it more than their Yamaha boards, I am. Because it's fun a heck. Finally we can play a keyboard like or better than a guitar. I use it as a pedal steel guitar too. Weird that Yamaha tried this before as BM pointed out but why did they not take it into the future which is now? They got beat but they will come back. Maybe they don't care but if you knew how to make this but didn't exploit it by 2023 what were you thinking? Kind of means they messed up unless the Montage 2 is like an Osmose that would be awesome. I know a synth workstation is a lot different from Osmose but they still seemed to give up with the VL and the GX but those are obviously way too expensive to be realistic. I typically sit down to the Osmose and like 4 or 6 hours disappear. That is proof something is extremely different and I can only play one voice at a time. I played through all 500 or more and can't stop playing them over and over again. Do I have a problem? I think I'm addicted. In comparison I can play through the static voices of all my other boards and I'm bored after an hour. There is magic in that system. Has anyone here played it yet? I need a sanity check. Jordan said it was one of the most influential of his lifetime, not sure he got paid to say that, but I believed him and I know why. It is not perfect I've had it freeze on some voices and I've had it shut down. I know they are working on it but it's so good I don't care. Probably not stage ready though but everything else is good to go.

[quotePost id=121945]
You don't seem to be clear on just what an 'envelope' is...The very essence of MPE is to allow you to dynamically express the desired envelope changes via MIDI ...'envelope manipulation' is what MPE is all about.
[/quotePost]
I'm afraid you're just still not seeing my point.

Let's say you use aftertouch (even on a non-MPE board) such that pressing down on a key makes the sound brighter. I don't think people would typically call that an envelope manipulation, though in a sense, I suppose you could. But IRL, that would typically be called a filter manipulation (and corresponds to MIDI CC 74, filter cutoff frequency, not an envelope parameter). You seem to be saying that every manipulation of pitch/filter/amplitude should be called an envelope manipulation, which I don't think is useful, even if it may be semantically defensible (based on your second to last paragraph), though I think that's a stretch. But okay, let's go with that. It is still not true that "for MPE if you play a 3 note triad you need THREE envelopes that can have totally different attacks."

Imagine an MPE board configured so that pressing down increases LFO depth (a common poly aftertouch function), sliding upward on the key makes it brighter (opens the filter), and moving the key side to side bends pitch up or down. None of those would typically be called envelope manipulations. I mean, sure, you could say that pressing down to increase the filter cutoff frequency is a real-time change to the sustain level parameter of the filter envelope, but IMO that's a very sideways way of looking at it. Whether looking at it from a MIDI perspective or a "human" perspective, I think one would look at this as manipulation of the filter cutoff, not manipulation of an envelope that is manipulating the filter cutoff. And looking at the LFO depth or pitch bend parameters as actually being envelope modifications is even more of a stretch than that. And regardless, none of these things require control over "totally different attacks." To put it differently, no aspect of MPE requires independent control of any MIDI envelope parameters. That doesn't mean it's not possible to create an MPE system that does alter envelopes (or what we typically think of as envelopes), but that facility is not needed for something to be MPE.

Anyway, moving on to Bad Mister and David's conversation, yup, Yamaha pioneered very expressive poly keyboard mechanisms long ago... and pre-MIDI! Only now is MIDI catching up to what Yamaha was doing then. Seeing Yamaha reintroduce (hopefully more cost-effective implementations of) this kind of tech now that MIDI can support it as well would be very cool indeed.

Buy an Yamaha Electone ELS-02C.

Keyboard: Custom (FSV)
Tone Generation: AWM+VA+Organ

INITIAL touch: Controls volume and timbre according to the velocity at which you play the keys. The harder you play the keys, the greater the volume and the brighter the timbre will become.

AFTER touch: Controls volume and timbre according to the pressure you apply to the keys after playing them. The harder you press down on the keys, the greater the volume and the brighter the timbre will become.

HORIZONTAL touch (ELS-02C): Controls the pitch by holding down the key and moving it laterally (wiggling your finger from side to side). The faster you move the key laterally, the faster and greater the pitch change becomes, within a range of +/- one octave.

AFTER touch: Controls the pitch according to the pressure you apply to the keys after playing them. The minimum setting produces no effect at all.

In ROLI terminology, the ELS-02C is missing the Slide and Lift gestures. But, you do get a knee lever! (Shades of Farfisa Mini Compact Deluxe, my first love.)

More than a T-shirt -- pj

Yeah, the first Moon shot cost a mess of money, too.

That's the way technology works. The first waffle is expensive. It takes a lot of R&D to find the recipe. Then, engineering and other maturing technology curves drive the cost down to where normal folk can afford waffles.

That's why I laugh when people just total up the cost of the components and say "Oh, they should sell XYZ for 50 cents." Somebody is going to eat that R&D and that somebody is the customer.

How big is the market for alternate MIDI control? How big is that market versus other money making opportunities? Yamaha is run by conservative business people. Why bay at the moon? 🙂

All the best -- pj