Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Covers the Yamaha MODX6, MODX7 and MODX8

Moderators: Derek, parametric, Saul

User avatar Australia
paulus1971
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:39 am

Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by paulus1971 » Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:41 am

Hi,

I'd like to know if MODX have all the preset voices of MOXF.
Because i have midi files years ago i sequenced in MOXF using MOXF voices, not GM voices. Could someone tell me please?

Thank you
Advertisement
Ultimate Vocal Library
User avatar Ukraine
Ivan Jochner
Member
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:35 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by Ivan Jochner » Thu Aug 01, 2019 10:26 am

paulus1971 wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:41 am
Hi,

I'd like to know if MODX have all the preset voices of MOXF.
Because i have midi files years ago i sequenced in MOXF using MOXF voices, not GM voices. Could someone tell me please?

Thank you
It has ALL waveforms of all previous Motifs, you can load no problems Moxf, but i am not sure you would playback them on Modx cause it does not have a sequencer. Cubasis or any other Daw the solution.
User avatar Australia
paulus1971
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by paulus1971 » Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:42 am

I think MODX has simple sequencer. is it true that we can't playback a midi file in MODX?
User avatar Ukraine
Ivan Jochner
Member
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 2:35 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by Ivan Jochner » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:04 am

paulus1971 wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:42 am
I think MODX has simple sequencer. is it true that we can't playback a midi file in MODX?
Kind of "sequencer", you can load and playback midi, but its not what we had on Motifs before.
Here is the other thread for this:

viewtopic.php?t=11682
User avatar United States of America
anotherscott
Member
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by anotherscott » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:59 am

All the Voices that were in the MOXF exist in the MODX as single-part Performances. However, a non-GM MIDI file that plays on the MOXF will probably not play properly on the MODX unless you reassign the sounds, because I don't think the same sounds are available via the same MIDI Program Changes. Pretty much the whole reason GM exists is to avoid this problem... but you specifically said you didn't juse GM, so that eliminates being able to automatically properly play back a file on any board other than the one it was created for, unless that board has not just the same sounds, but has them in the same "order" as the board you created them on. If you want MIDI files to be portable, use GM, that's exactly what it's there for!
User avatar Australia
paulus1971
Member
Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by paulus1971 » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:45 pm

i see....

i am starting to understand now...so there is no voice anymore in modx, but instead it uses performances.....and voices are always inside performances, not like in moxf

thank you all for your kind help
User avatar United States of America
Kurzweil
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by Kurzweil » Wed Aug 14, 2019 1:31 pm

Anotherscott explained that the voices are all there. You will just need to hunt them down (voice numbers are fairly meaningless on the keyboard itself - they apparently exist only in the DataList - a complaint I have with both MODX and Montage) and change the sequence to the new location. Having a multipart performance now existing as a single part performance may not be a problem. I believe that a single part MODX performance will still contain all of the original MOXF voices as ELEMENTS on MODX. They can be individually accessed and edited or deleted. They can also be extracted as new voices if you need a portion of the original performance. In short, I believe that anything that previously existed on any MOXF is now on MODX. Motif XF sounds will arrive soon with the first MODX update, in all likelihood, as this is already the case on Montage with version 2.5 released late last year. I had assumed that the MOXF already had all Motif XF sounds. I thought that was the point of the XF in its name. But they came late to Montage.

If I haven't got this all correct, I have likely provided enough fodder for someone to quickly set it straight.

Having 2655 performances on Montage may give a false impression as to the magnitude of the actual resources. A vast number of those performances are interpretations, manipulations, and modifications of a much much smaller set of actual sounds. For instance, there are only one or two acoustic basses, not fifty. Kurzweil, for instance, seems to have two or three times as many unique orchestra sounds - particularly strings, not that I use more than the same two or three most folk need. Yamaha seems to program a great deal of "gee whiz" type performances that I have trouble using. Others probably find them inspiring, of course.

While I'm complaining, I wonder why Yamaha is so late to the game with a decent Leslie emulation? It seems that Roland, Korg, and Kurzweil all got there ten years ago. Of course, the first two of those manufacturers build dedicated modeled organs, and the third (Kurzweil) has an organ model as a separate engine (KB3) in most of its synthesizer keyboards. By this theory, we may have to wait for an actual organ engine in Yamaha's flagship synth to ever get the rotary speaker effect "right". Doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to get the sync'd vibrato and tremolo adjusted to convincing depths to fool us. I remain underwhelmed by the overall (Hammond) organ performances and the problem is definitely with the effects; not the tonewheels themselves. Those ARE straight samples and except for Hammond having as many as 91 independent tones, nothing should be different except possibly the polyphony.
User avatar United States of America
anotherscott
Member
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by anotherscott » Wed Aug 14, 2019 3:23 pm

Motif XF and MOXF *voices* are the same, and they are all in the MODX (as single part performances).
Having a multipart performance now existing as a single part performance may not be a problem. I believe that a single part MODX performance will still contain all of the original MOXF voices as ELEMENTS
There's no such thing as turning a multipart performance into a single part performance. If a Performance has multiple parts on a MOXF, it would similarly have the same number of parts in a Montage/MODX.

So then picking up from what I said up top, Motif XF and MOXF *performances* (which are combinations of up to 4 voices) are not in the MODX as far as I know, though they can be recreated since all the voices are there, and they can also be imported, so you can get them from your old machine into your new if need be. The way I thought of it, MoitfXF.MOXF performances were not so much intended to be seen as "factory provided sounds" but rather were designed to say "here are some examples of how you can combine our voices in different ways." That is to say, they are basically "demos".

As someone who came from MODX from MOX/MOXF, I can say that the only Performances I'd have any interest in bringing over were the ones I created myself (i.e. my own combinations of voices). The odds that I would need any example combination of four voices (that Yamaha put together as a demo) for an actual song of my own or one that I was playing in a gig was basically non-existent. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong, and there are lots of people who found Yamaha's provided combinations inspiring and used them as is for their own stuff. But in that case, as long as they backed up their stuff while they still had the old machine, they can bring them into their new machine. But a 4-part performance remains a 4-part performance. Each individual part on a MODX corresponds to a what used to be a Voice, and has the same 8-element structure.
Having 2655 performances on Montage may give a false impression as to the magnitude of the actual resources. A vast number of those performances are interpretations, manipulations, and modifications of a much much smaller set of actual sounds
That's true on of these kinds of boards, including Kurzweil. The total number of raw sounds can be seen by looking at the wave list, which are the individual number of samples. On the MODX, that's 6347. (That only counts the sounds of the sample engine... the FM synth engine by itself has virtually unlimited programmable variations.) Kurzweil's top of the line Forte has 3484 (plus the separate analog synth engine and organ engine, and an FM engine coming with the 4.0 update). But the numbers alone don't tell you how many samples they have of a certain kind of instrument. For example, more than half of Yamaha's 6347 are percussion sounds.

Another way to compare sample sets is the total amount of raw data. Montage/MODX has 5.67 GB of sample data (before adding any expansions). I believe Forte has 12.7 GB, though all other Kurzweils have far less. Second biggest Kurzweils (Forte SE, SP6, forthcoming PC4) have 2 GB or thereabouts. All others I believe have 256 mb (a quarter of a gigabyte) or less.

Though of course sound quality is not strictly based on volume of unique sample data. Lots of sample data for sounds you'll never use doesn't help you. And even among the sounds you do care about, a given board's samples will still have different characters, and the programming options of different boards can be "vastly" different.
I remain underwhelmed by the overall (Hammond) organ performances and the problem is definitely with the effects; not the tonewheels themselves. Those ARE straight samples
Effects are definitely a big part of it. The Leslie effect is tricky. I remember that, even though the Kurzweil SP4 could load programs from the bigger Kurzweils, it could not use programs that had their top "Double Leslie" effect, because the SP4 had "only" a maximum of ten effects units available, and that Leslie effect all by itself required more than ten effects units. The fact that it's so hard to do is why people will pay $500 for a pedal that does nothing except a high quality Leslie simulation.

One thing about the design of Kurzweil and Korg is that you can take as many effects resources as a board has and put them on a single sound, whereas Yamaha assigns a fixed number of effects resources to a given part. (Roland has some products that work one way and some that work the other.) The Yamaha approach is less flexible (you can't take "unused" effects resources from other parts and use them to create more complex effects on a single part), but it largely eliminates the common problem people complain about on other boards, where they ask "why does an instrument sound different when I add it to a split/layer compared to how it sounded when I played it by itself?" By reserving dedicated effects for different parts, the user can add new parts to existing parts without worrying about their sounding differently compared to how they sounded when played alone. So there are advantages to each approach.
Those ARE straight samples and except for Hammond having as many as 91 independent tones, nothing should be different except possibly the polyphony.
There are differences between using straight drawbar samples for an organ sound and a "dedicated organ engine" approach besides the one you mention of eating up polyphony. There are phase issues for one thing (which I'd explain except this is already too long). Also, drawbar tones on a real tonewheel organ change in character with the position of the swell pedal (somewhat simulated with a distortion effect, but not quite the same). Also there are harmonically based leakage/crosstalk sounds which change depending on what you play, and are not properly simulated with a constant sample of such noises. Not every manufacturer's "organ engine" necessarily emulates all this or does it equally well, but they do put the straight sample approach at an inherent disadvantage.
User avatar United States of America
Kurzweil
Member
Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:18 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by Kurzweil » Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:44 pm

drawbar tones on a real tonewheel organ change in character with the position of the swell pedal (somewhat simulated with a distortion effect, but not quite the same)
Reading back through this, I see that it may be a bit long. Feel free to skim or skip.

I think that I may understand this one a bit. A lot of organs used a variable resistor as the swell pedal device. They had a problem in that volume controls wear out with use and can become scratchy and/or intermittent. Allen used a light source with a triangular-shaped window to diminish the amount of light on a photoreceptor. They went to full volume if the light bulb burned out.

Hammond used a variable capacitor. There was no physical contact between the two sides; they were blades that moved in and out of each other's space - hence nothing to wear out. This had the additional advantage of being able to diminish the high frequencies at a greater amount than the low frequencies. Laurens Hammond, just like Allen, was attempting to invent a "windless pipe organ". They were using the classical church organ, and to a lesser extent the theater pipe organ, as their goal and example. All pipe organs use swell shades as a volume control. They look like giant Venetian blinds (horizontal or vertical) and moved by pneumatic force (wind). High frequencies are attenuated much more than the lows, which is what a Hammond swell pedal also does, albeit to a smaller degree. This accounts for some of the "bite" a Hammond gets when you depress the pedal; it doesn't just get louder, it gets brighter - as Scott said. I believe distortion was not a thing until the advent of using a 40-watt Leslie on large stages competing with guitars and drums. The old Leslie tuning instructions stated "pull out all drawbars and hold a chord at full volume. Turn up the Leslie volume control until distortion is just being heard and then back off." No rock organ player runs that volume anywhere but full up. Key click, distortion, and dirty sine waves were all considered design flaws that have now become an intrinsic element of any clone, including Hammond's own.

I mentioned the theater organ because surely Hammond V-3 vibrato would otherwise never have existed? Theater organs were still a very big deal in 1939 when the Hammond appeared. Pipe organ tremulants vary the wind pressure which varies both the pitch and the volume. The Leslie was the first electric organ tremulant that even gave a nod to where it originated, hence our great love for it today. Guitar amps had tremolo and organs had vibrato. Leslie had both. Hammond plus Leslie was a marriage made in heaven and also one that Laurens Hammond absolutely hated. It "made his organ sound wrong". Hammond chorus is an attempt to synthesize pipe organ celeste, which is actually generated with a second similar set of detuned pipes. Hammond combined the scanner vibrato signal with straight un-tremulated sound to make the C-1, C-2, and C-3 chorus settings.

One last Hammond comment. That particular organ remains the go-to sound for rock, jazz, and gospel organ. Even though there are probably still more Hammonds in churches than any other location, most organ aficionados agree that despite that being its' intended customer, it was deemed a poor pipe imitation, save in a large reverberant cathedral space where a panel of untrained observers failed to discern which was the Hammond and which was the Aeolian-Skinner pipe organ (Skinner vs. Hammond around 1939 over the right to call his device an "organ").

I appreciate the comment regarding how these sampled and modeled organs work. I am still trying to get a grip on it. I am also trying to determine if Montage will get it for me or if I need to look at Forte. Adding FM on a Kurzweil ticks one of the boxes that attracted me initially to MODX, and subsequently to Montage after the 88 note keybed issues presented on MODX. For now, I am trying to revisit Kurzweil programming (on my aging PC3x) while at the same time learning how to use the Montage. A 15 lb weight savings is not insignificant for a person of my physical capabilities.
User avatar United States of America
anotherscott
Member
Member
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 6:36 pm

Re: Does MODX have all preset voices of MOXF?

Unread post by anotherscott » Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:18 pm

Interesting info there. Yes, distortion and such was considered undesirable by the designers. Harmonic distortion does add a kind of brightness, but right, it's not exactly the same as what the swell pedal did as it also increased volume.

As for weight, the forthcoming PC4 will be a bit lighter than the MODX8, and will have some nice advantages, including the modeled organ engine, a modeled VA synth engine, aftertouch, assignable outs, more flexible MIDI implementation, more user sample space, and more hands-on controls (knobs, buttons, sliders, optional ribbon). I wish it had the MODX' endless rotaries, though.
Post Reply

Return to “Yamaha MODX Forum”