Yes, I saw that for the first Str Ensemble under Mod/Control and Control Assign I see that Volume is being used. But I don't understand exactly how it's changing that volume. I don't see where I would set something to set it 0 when turned all the way CCW.

Sorry, I sent my response and didn't see your complete response. Your instructions don't seem to work. When I click on Edit Part 5 Control Settings I still don't see anywhere to set to volume to zero when all the off.

I think it's part 5 and 6 that is the Orchestra parts.

Yes, if you solo Part 5 it sounds like strings. If you solo Part 6 it sounds like horns. If you look at the element names you'll see this is the case as well. The "orchestra" comprised of strings and horns (brass+woodwinds).

Now that that's settled - lets deal with Parts 5 & 6.

Look at the control assignments. Notice volume is a ramp that starts at the horizontal line (0 offset) and goes up from there. That's the case for both Parts 5 and 6. With SK rotated all the way counter-clockwise this places you at the left most position of the curve (for Volume). And this is where the offset is 0. Then as you turn the SK clockwise, the curve goes up and only up from there.

This is telling you that with the SK full clockwise that both strings (Part 5) and horns (Part 6) are at a non-zero level. Meaning the programmed value in the parameters.

And when you look at the [PERFORMANCE] (HOME) screen you'll see that the volume of Part 5 (strings) is 80 and the volume of Part 6 (horns) is 40.

Now the easiest thing for you to do is just set both of these volumes to 0 (from the HOME screen). The downside is that the relative volume of the two Parts (5 and 6) will now be knocked out of wack. You can adjust the ratios of Part 5 and Part 6 curves with Volume as the destination to compensate. Just set these by ear.

That's one choice.

--OR --

You can subtract 80 from the existing setup and not change the HOME screen volumes. This will set Part 5 to 0 and Part 6 to -40. Actually these will both be set to 0 (you can't have -40) but the effect is the same. Part 6 will not cross the 0 threshold until something has added 40 to it. Note: I hear that this would be when the ratio on a "hold" curve is set to -20. That sounds like subtracting 40 to me. You can use any controller (I used pitch bend) as the source controller since using "Hold" as the curve ignores the controller and will always output a single value (-20 in this case).

The downside to this option is that now your orchestra is 40 ticks quieter in all superknob positions. Cranked all the way up will be 40 ticks quieter than the original. You can always adjust ratios to compensate. You'd need to experiment to be sure you maintain the right balance between Part 5 and 6.

-- OR --

You can change the curves to bi-polar so they subtract on one side and add on the other. You can move the parameters around so the subtraction is only for a smaller part of the curve (along the x axis). Your subtraction portion needs to subtract an absolute 40 "ticks" from Part 5. You can adjust this by ear by striking a key at maximum velocity and listening for strings after the piano decays.

The downside of this is that the nature of bi-polar it's not easy to setup exactly what you want in terms of the minimum output vs. maximum output (asymmetrical) if that's what you want. It's a little harder to maintain the balance AND achieve the required subtraction on the left-side of the curve. But still - it's a way.

@Phineasphred....

It is not my intent to be facetious. I too ran into frequent difficulties with, what is known as "Control Assigns"... this includes the SuperKnob and Motion Sequencer.

All the answers you seek can be found by understanding how Control Assign works, at Element/Operator, Part and Performance Levels.

It is not a small subject. Learning it will require diving in to the relevant sections of the Owner Manual, Reference Manual and Data List Manual.

There is no single "Control Assign" section of the Manuals. Instead, it is mainly split across the "Edit" sections for AWM2, FM, Drums, with some function specific high level overviews available in the Owner Manual and Reference Manual.

It is worth biting the bullet to start reading/learning/understanding these or you will frequently run into issues.

The Super Knob sits at the top of the pile and only has Control over the Assign Knobs that sit at the Performance Level (Edit Common/Audio).

The Performance Level Assign Knobs can be programmed/linked to Part Level Assign Knobs (Edit Part).

In this way the Superknob, via Performance Level Control Assigns, can control Part Level Control Assigns.

So when the Superknob is not doing what you want... you effectively have the "whole system" to debug.

The good news is, once you figured it out, it is plain sailing from then and does in fact make sense. This will allow you to create your own "custom" Assigns from scratch, without needing to untangle and debug Control Assigns created by a different user.

I almost exclusively build my own now. It's quick, it makes sense to me, and it behaves exactly how I want it to behave. It has saved me a lot of headaches.

Thank you Jason, that kinda made sense to me. I'll play with it more and apply your suggestions to see how far I get.

Thank you Antony, you summed up exactly what I was thinking. I was thinking that the SK didn't actually control Volume, it controlled something else that controlled volume. You explanation was great. I will go through manuals and see what I can learn.

The older firmware didn't abstract the intermediate assignments (links to Common Assignable Knobs which are, in turn assigned as source to a Part level Assignable Knob -- and this Part level Assignable Knob is what is assigned as the source to the final parameter destination). You had to manually make all of these assignments yourself because there was no other way (no [CONTROL ASSIGN] auto-magic assignment "directly" of the Superknob to a destination parameter -- where, in this more recent firmware, the system automatically selects both the Common and Part Assignable knobs to link together to the Superknob and destination parameter).

For visualization, here's a picture I made 5 years ago:

Source: https://www.yamahasynth.com/forum/controlling-filter-cutoff-with-superknob#reply-22132

It's good to know the framework here since the automated [CONTROL ASSIGN] may not always do what you want - you may want more reuse of your Assignable Knobs (at either the Common or Part level - or both) than the automation provides in order to conserve knobs so you don't run out -- or having a single knob vs. 2 may be easier to control manually -- or it may be "easier" to program or conceptualize if you customize the knob assignments.

In this case, dealing with assignments already made - the fact that it's Part #5's and Part #6's Assignable Knobs controlling the Parameters and not Super Knob is of no huge consequence since you really don't have to redo any of the intermediate assignments. Furthermore, since the filter you are using (Super Knob) within the Part edit will find any assignments of Part Assignable Knobs that are tied to various parameters -- you don't need to necessarily know which assignments are made since you can solve this by just changing the ratio and/or polarity and/or add other assignments to "push" the offset further down. Although it's better not to stay in the dark about the underlying architecture -- it's not absolutely necessary to learn all of that since the task here can involve just relying on the abstraction provided that says (within a Part) Super Knob is assigned to this Parameter. And Volume does show up in both Parts 5 and 6. That's all you ultimately need to fool with although of course the other SK assignments have not been addressed and these would ideally be offset/modified in the same manner as Volume so all parameters that are (indirectly) destinations of Super Knob track together as in the original programming. That said - sonically - you may not be so concerned with the other parameters as Volume is key to achieving what you need and there's something to be said about ignoring the "collateral damage" until later and only if you feel it's necessary.

Jason, is this diagram still accurate, or does it predate the current methodology?

The diagram is still accurate. This framework hasn't changed.

Tempting to think how to draw a corollary diagram that shows the workflow.