Category Archives: MOX

Groovin’ in eight zones

Posted on by

I heard a great interpretation of Chris Isaak’s “Wicked Game” by Groovy Waters. Their work inspired me to create a down-tempo PSR/Tyros style with break beats that would let me jam over the changes (Bm-A-E-E).

And that led me into a whole new exploration in Motif/MOX and PSR/Tyros styles!

While goofing around with the Yamaha MOX6 workstation, I stumbled into some break beats with “8Z” in the name. I noticed that the “8Z” arpeggios are targeted for voices with “8Z” in their names. So, what is this “8Z” business?

The Motif XS (and MOX) added 8-zone drum kits and arpeggios, hence, the “8Z” in the names. A conventional drum kit has dozens of individual percussion sounds laid out across the MIDI note range (AKA “the keyboard”). An 8-zone kit is an extension of a regular synth voice where each voice element is assigned a percussion sound. The usual upper and lower note limits determine the key range for each sound. Here is the element information for the PRE8:060 “8Z Romps” voice:

                            Name        Note#
                         ----------   ---------
    Waveform             Low   High   Low  High
    ----------------     ----  ----   ---- ----
    BD T9-4               C0    C1     24   36  
    SD Elec7              C#1   F1     37   41  
    China St              F#1   C2     42   48  
    SD Rim SE             C#2   C3     49   60  
    Bd Jungle 2           C#3   F#3    61   66  
    Bd Distortion4        G3    C4     67   72  
    Bd Distortion RM      C#4   C5     73   84  
    Bd D&B2               C#5   C6     85   96

Each waveform is stretched across a multi-key zone. Thus, each of the notes within a zone have a slightly pitch-shifted tone, allowing for tonal variation in patterns where repeated notes are played in sequence. Since these are basically regular synth voices, you are also free to mess about with the filter, amplitude envelope and all the usual sound design goodies.

The arpeggios designed for the “8Z Romps” voice do just that. (See “MA_8Z Romps” and so forth.) The pitch shift, etc. breaks up the monotony of repeated notes.

The “8 zone” idea makes it easy to cobble new drum kits together from the diaspora of waveforms in the regular drum kits. You probably don’t need more than eight different percussion sounds for a set of basic beats. A quick survey of other “8Z” kits shows this to be true:

    8Z HeavyHearts      8Z Chilly Breakz    8Z Gated Beatz
    --------------      ----------------    --------------
    Bd T9-1             Bd HipHop6          Bd Gate
    Bd Hard Long        Sd HipHop9          Bd HipHop9
    SD Elec12           Sd T8-1             Sd HipHop6
    Sd HipHop6          HH Closed T8-2      Sd Hip Gate
    HH Closed D&B       HH Open T8-2        HH Closed T8-1
    HH Open T9          Electric Perc1      HH Open T8-1
    Clap AnSm           Sleigh Bell         Noise Burst
    Shaker Hip 2        Shaker Hip 1        Shaker Hip 1

These kits have a different key layout than “8Z Romps”. In fact, these 8Z kits have a few zones that resemble the conventional kit layout — the bass drums (Bd) cover the notes where bass drum is usually found, the snare drums (Sd) cover the usual notes for snare drum, etc. Thus, you can play “regular” drum arpeggios through these 8Z voices and they sound just fine. The upper range elements cover a wide range of notes and are the “catch all” for the usual percussion spice such as conga, shakers, guiro, triangle and the like. With the pitch shifting, the “catch all” approach can produce some hip patterns.

There is far more fun to be had. I came across the “8Z” kits and arpeggios while playing the Performance USR2:102(G06) Ibiza Growl Sax. This Performance had the feel that I was looking for, although I wasn’t too pleased with the sax voice. (A problem that is easily fixed.) The Performance assigns “8Z Romps” to the first voice, but, wait! It plays break beats through “8Z Romps” that were not designed for “8Z Romps”, having different zones, etc. Cool. Yamaha sound designers are not only good at following the rules, they are equally adept at breaking the rules, too.

I decided to go ahead with the break beats from Ibiza Growl Sax even though the PSR/Tyros do not have “8Z” drum kits. I had to unwind all of the 8Z-ness and map the percussion voices to standard PSR-S950 drum kits. Unfortunately, the repetitive patterns are a little bit plain even though the musical feel is still good.

Next up, crushing the drums and bouncing them around.

Performance styles for PSR-E443

Posted on by

The PSR-E443 folks don’t get enough love, so here is a collection of performance styles for the E443 and the E433.

So, what is a “performance style?”

The Yamaha Motif/MOX series of synthesizer workstations have hundreds of factory “Performances” to to help a composer get started with a new song. A Performance has up to four independent voices (drum, bass, guitar, etc.) and up to six sets of related musical phrases — “arpeggios” in Motif-speak. The arpeggios are drawn from a built-in library of several thousand musical phrases in a slew of contemporary genres. Each set of phrases has a role (main section, fill, break) and the composer switches between sets while playing in order to lay down a basic arrangement or backing track. Even if you’re not a songwriter, the Motif Performances are just plain fun for jamming or practice.

I recorded and translated 22 of my favorite Motif/MOX Performances to PSR/Tyros styles — Performance styles. They play just like regular styles (follow chords in the left hand, play fill-ins when changing main sections, etc.) The styles are stripped down and are meant to be played. A few of the styles have only bass and drum, so there isn’t a lot of elaborate orchestration to get in the way. The introductions and endings are very simple.

This first collection targets the PSR-E443 and E433. The styles are SFF1 and should work on other arrangers supporting SFF1 although you may need to substitute different drum kits. The styles in this collection do not use Mega Voices. A more advanced collection with SFF GE and Mega Voices is being developed.

Since these are my favorite performances, the styles come from a funky, jazzy, fusion kind of place.

For more information, check out the README page. Then, download the ZIP file and have fun!

MOX interview: Follow up

Posted on by

Here’s a quick follow up after my interview with Yamaha marketing.

First, the word “conversation” is a better description than “interview.” I had a really enjoyable, high-bandwidth conversation with fellow gear-heads. What could be better than that? The Yamaha team members are friendly, extremely knowledgeable and open. They are also good listeners and had read my pre-interview MOX retrospective.

So, thanks to Yamaha for listening!

I also learned some things that I intend to put into practice going forward. We discussed how I created the voices that I use on my church gig and the issue of sound dropping across voice changes in MOX Voice Mode. One way to avoid sound cut-off is to use Song Mode instead of Voice Mode. Assign a voice to each part in Song Mode and then select parts on the fly. I’ll have to give this a try. I also want to experiment with the assignable knobs for drawbar control and Song Mode may be part of this solution, too.

Since the conversation was relatively short — about 25 minutes with my MacBook Air crashing due to a thermal overload part way through (Yikes!) — I went blank on some of the reasons and history for my work style. For example, I created the voices for the church gig through the front panel and didn’t use either the PC- or iPad-based editors. I since reconstructed my mind-set from way-back-when. I’m sure that I was sooooo anxious to use the MOX at the gig that I just dove into the front panel. I had programmed a TG-500 back in the day and the Yamaha voice architecture was still familiar to me. (The Motif/MOX effects structure is way easier to understand than the old TG, thankfully.) The last thing I needed was a software editor to get between me and the gig!

I didn’t have an iPad when I bought the MOX6 and wasn’t aware of the Yamaha apps for Motif/MOX. The apps — once I learned about them — motivated me to budget for and to buy the iPad. Aside from Web-browsing and e-mail, my iPad is almost entirely devoted to music-making tools (no cat videos). I have both Cubasis and Mobile Music Sequencer (MMS) installed. MMS gets used; Cubasis not so much. Cubase is one of those tools that I want to learn — kind of like my current explorations in Ableton Live.

Starting today, I would use the iPad apps. Heck, I should (would) check out the Yamaha PC-based editor and the fine Motif/MOX tools by John Melas.

Well, there you have it. A positive experience all the way around!

If you’re curious about how I use the MOX for content creation, please check out the following posts and pages:

What’s in a name?

Posted on by

Anything that we want to go from just a beginner to a pro,
You need a montage (montage)
Oh, it takes a montage (montage)
— Team America Lyrics

Back in January before Winter NAMM 2015, there was a lot of speculation about a new Yamaha workstation to replace the venerable Motif product line. Yamaha filed for the trademark name “Montage” in December 2014 and many wondered if this would be the name of the new workstation. (Yamaha have a teaser ad for “Reface” at https://www.yamahasynth.com with a countdown clock leading up to Summer 2015 NAMM week. Your guess is as good as mine!)

Getting a little bit Zen for a moment, it doesn’t matter what a thing is called. All that matters is what the thing is.

Periodically, I troll the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) database for interesting patents and patent applications. Yamaha carefully (and wisely!) protects its inventions through patents. Yamaha R&D, by the way, rarely publishes in the scientific literature, which is another way to stake your ground. Patent protection is stronger legally. A patent costs money, so a corporation is usually serious about a technology when it makes the commitment to file. The Yamaha patent applications cite Japanese applications/patents to establish priority in the United States. Thus, there is usually an existing Japanese application or patent that was filed at an earlier date for each US application.

Of course, a patent does not necessarily indicate that a product will follow. However, I’ve noticed a trend in some (relatively) recent filings by Yamaha.

Let’s start with US Patent Application Publication 2013/0305902, “Accompaniment Data Generating Apparatus,” published November 21, 2013. Quoting the application, “An object of the present invention is to provide an accompaniment data generating apparatus which can generate automatic accompaniment data that uses phrase waveform data including chords.” This rather lengthy patent application describes a musical instrument keyboard that uses audio waveforms in the same way that an arranger or Motif-series workstation uses MIDI phrases (AKA arpeggios). The application cites Japanese Patent Publications No. 2900753 (MIDI-based accompaniment) and No. 4274272 (MIDI-based arpeggio performance) as prior art.

US Patent Application Publication 2013/0047821 (published February 28, 2013) covers similar ground. This application adds waveform pitch shifting and time stretching. It cites Japanese Patent Publication No. 3397082 on the specific capability of pitch shifting and time stretching. Audio phrases (waveforms) need to be transposed via pitch shifting and must fit into the rhythm via time-stretching.

US Patent Application Publication 2013/0305907 (published November 21, 2013) is related to the previous two application. It covers production of chords using audio waveforms, guided by chord root and chord type.

US Patent Application Publication 2014/0033902 (published February 6, 2014) is titled “Technique for Analyzing Rhythm Structure of Music Audio Data.” The technique described in this application identifies the beat positions and intervals in a piece of music in audio form (i.e., rhythm pattern analysis). Figure 1 shows the embodiment (design) of the technique within an accompaniment generation system. The beat position information is used to synchronize playback of both MIDI and audio phrases. The diagram shows a “MIDI reproduction section” and an “Audio reproduction section.”

The most recent publication is 2015/0154979 (June 4, 2015) and is titled “Automated Performance Technology Using Audio Waveform Data.” The application deals with a specific issue that arises when audio waveforms are used for accompaniment (pitch shifting and time stretching). Quoting the application, “it is an object of the present invention to properly deal with a processing delay and sound quality deterioration that are likely to occur when audio waveform data is reproduced with time axis expansion/contraction control performed on the audio waveform data in accordance with a desired performance tempo.”

These are long documents with a lot of detail expressed in excrutiating “patent language.” They are too long and detailed to summarize here. I recommend downloading the patent applications from the USPTO, brewing coffee, and then reading the applications.

Looking at the overall trend, Yamaha are thinking about automated accompaniment that incorporates both MIDI and audio phrases. This technology could be applied to arranger instruments or a new generation of synthesizer workstation. The latest arrangers have “audio styles” which only use audio for the rhythm track. No “harmonic” phrases (e.g., bass line, electric piano comping, etc.) are available. The current Motif generation (the XF and MOXF) have only MIDI-like arpeggios. Possibly, combined audio/MIDI accompaniment was not fully cooked in time for the PSR-S950 and Tyros 5.

I am very interested to see if Yamaha rolls out this technology in future products. The definition of “montage” is “the process or technique of selecting, editing, and piecing together separate sections of film to form a continuous whole.” Hmmm.

MOX construction kits update: version 2

Posted on by

I hope that you have downloaded and are using the MOX construction kits.

It’s no secret that many of the Motif/MOX arpeggios are taken from Tyros/PSR workstation styles. If you scan through the MOX data list, you’ll notice that many arpeggios share a similar name. These musical phrases belong to the same family. A construction kit is an MOX performance consisting of arpeggios in the same family — a kind of “mini-style.” You can use a construction kit as the basis for a new original performance. Or, just play the arps for fun! This is a great way to get a feel for the musical groove within a family and to dive into the thousands of arpeggios built into the MOX.

I released the first set of construction kits in January 2014. Since then, I have fixed a few divots in my programming. Unfortunately, some sonic glitches remain here and there. Please think of these minor bugs as “exercises left to the reader.” At least the tedious work of arranging arpeggios into performances by family has been done for you.

Since then, I have spent a lot of time translating MOX performances back to PSR/Tyros styles. I have focused on the new combinations programmed by Yamaha since it is kind of pointless to duplicate the pre-existing PSR/Tyros styles which were the original source for the phrases! In my search for additional performances, I stumbled across two MOX ALL files:

    “XSpand Your World” voices and performances translated to MOX format, and
    Motif XS user bank 2 and 3 performances translated to MOX format.

These files are available at this site.

“XSpand You World” was a promotional package put together by Yamaha to drive sales of the Motif XS. Yamaha distributed new voices and performances through “XSpand Your World” in the form of an “ALL” file. The MOX is based on the Motif XS, so Motif XS voices and performances will play on the MOX when imported into the MOX. The Motif XS and MOX “ALL” files have different internal binary formats. (Yamaha strikes, again.) Fortunately for us, Moessieurs translated the XSpand Your World ALL file to MOX format.

The Motif XS has three user performance banks and the MOX has 2 user performance banks. When it’s factory fresh, the MOX USER 1 bank contains the same performances as the Motif XS USER 1 bank. The MOX USER 2 bank, however, is a “best of” collection from the Motif XS USER 2 and USER 3 banks. Thus, there are 128 (give or take) Motif XS performances that do not ship with the MOX. Moessieurs translated the Motif XS USER 2 and USER 3 banks to a single MOX ALL file. You may import both banks all at once (save your data first!) or you may import one performance at a time into a performance location specified by you. Please see the “FILE” section of the reference manual for further information about file formats, saving and loading.

The Motif XS USER 2 and 3 banks, in particular, are a rich resource for new sonic material. I immediately got to work and imported the funky and jazzy performances into my MOX workstation. Then, I saved everything into a MOX ALL file. The new ALL file (CKITS_V2.X4A) contains construction kits and the Motif XS jazz/funk performances. I prepared two tables (mox_perf_table_v2.txt) listing the performances in MOX USER banks 1 and 2. I’m calling this whole package “Construction Kits Version 2.” Download the ZIP file and have at it!

One final word. The Motif XS has only five arpeggio types per performance. The MOX has six. So, the Motif XS performances have only five arpeggios even though they are playing on the MOX.

SA and SA2: Is Motif up to the task?

Posted on by

Every now and again, the subject of Super Articulation and Super Articulation 2 voices come up on the Motifator site. Here are some rather lengthy comments that I posted in response to a recent inquiry.

First, here is some background information from the S950 and Tyros 5 manual. The descriptions of Super Articulation (SA) and Super Articulation 2 (SA2) are quoted from the Tyros 5 manual. The voice descriptions (e.g., JazzArtist guitar voice) are taken from the PSR-S950 itself — when you press [INFO] in the voice selection screen, the S950 displays a description of the selected voice. These descriptions show the kind of SA effects supported by the S950. The S950 does not have front panel articulation buttons; a foot pedal can be assigned to trigger SA effects.

The description of Articulation Element Modeling (AEM) is from the Tyros 5 manual. It is a pretty good concise description of what AEM (SA2) does, but is a gross simplification WRT Yamaha’s patents. AEM does a lot of cross-fading and sample whacking. Plus, the concise description downplays the timing analysis in order to avoid unwanted latency effects and to detect releases.

Super Articulation voices

These Voices provide many benefits with great playability and expressive control in real time. For example, with the Saxophone Voice, if you play a C and then a D in a very legato way, you will hear the note change seamlessly, as though a saxophone player played it in a single breath. Similarly with the Concert Guitar Voice and play the D note strongly, the D note would sound as a “hammer on,” without the string being plucked again. Depending on how you play, other effects such as “shaking” or breath noises (for the Trumpet Voice), or finger noises (for the Guitar Voice) are produced.

JazzArtist: Super Articulation provides realistic guitar phrasing: Legato notes played within an interval of a 4th sound as a hammer on, pull off or slide. The last note has a release noise. fret noise is added randomly and the Foot pedal 2 [controller] adds a cutting noise.

NylonGuitar: Play normally and the voice is expressive and dynamic. The Foot pedal 2 [controller] changes the sounds to harmonics.

SmoothBrass: When brass instruments play legato, there is no attack sound on the legato notes. Super Articulation recreates this. Play legato and the notes join together, changing with velocity.

ConcertStrings: Strings can play legato, where each phrase is one continuous sound. Play legato and Super Articulation strings work in the same way. There are also three dynamic levels.

TrumpetFall: Jazz Trumpeters often use a fall or doit. Super Articulation recreates this with a velocity switch: Play harder to create the effect, change between fall and doit with the Modulation wheel. (Pushing forward changes to a doit.) Use the Foot pedal 2 [controller] to add breath noise.

Super Articulation 2 voices

For wind instrument Voices and Violin Voices, a special technology called AEM (see below) has been used, which features detailed samples of special expressive techniques used on those specific instruments — to bend or slide into notes, to “join” different notes together, or to add expressive nuances at the end of a note, etc. You can add these articulations by playing legato or non-legato, or by jumping in pitch by around an octave. For example, using the Clarinet Voice, if you hold a C note and play the Bb above, you’ll hear a glissando up to the Bb. Some “note off” effects are also produced automatically when you hold a note for over a certain time. Each S.Art2! Voice has its own default vibrato setting, so that when you select a S.Art2! Voice, the appropriate vibrato is applied regardless of the Modulation wheel position. You can adjust the vibrato by moving the Modulation wheel.

AEM Technology

When you play the piano, pressing a “C” key produces a definite and relatively fixed C note. When you play a wind instrument, however, a single fingering may produce several different sounds depending on the breath strength, the note length, the adding of trills or bend effects, and other performance techniques. Also, when playing two notes continuously — for example “C” and “D” these two notes will be smoothly joined, and not sound independent as they would on a piano.

AEM (Articulation Element Modeling) is the technology for simulating this characteristic of instruments. During performance, the most appropriate sound samples are selected in sequence in real time, from huge quantities of sampled data. They are smoothly joined and sounded — as would naturally occur on an actual acoustic instrument.

This technology to smoothly join different samples enables the application of realistic vibrato. Conventionally on electronic musical instruments, vibrato is applied by moving the pitch periodically. AEM technology goes much further by analyzing and disaggregating the sampled vibrato waves, and smoothly joins the disaggregated data in real time during your performance. If you move the Modulation wheel when you play the S.Art2! Voice (using AEM technology), you can also control the depth of the vibrato, and still maintain remarkable realism.

Motif and MOX

Starting with the Motif XS, Yamaha added Expanded Articulation (XA). Without diving into too much detail, XA allows control over articulations using the assignable function buttons. XA also detects and triggers samples to handle legato technique. The Motif/MOX player has precise control over when an articulation is sounded and the Motif/MOX programmer can construct new voices using XA (or tweak existing voices).

The S950 (and Tyros) monitor and analyze the notes played by the musician. The Tyros, in addition, has two panel buttons to control articulation. The workstation software determines which articulation to sound and when based upon what the musician has played on the keyboard or (optional) controllers.

Both the S950 and Tyros implement Super Articulation (SA) voices. SA voices and XA voices use roughly comparable sample playback technology (AWM). New samples can only be installed onto an S950 through an expansion pack (proprietary format). Yamaha has not released an expansion pack editor. S950 voice editing is limited to “quick edit” envelope tweaks; you cannot get to the element level on the S950. Motif/MOX voice editing is vastly deeper.

Super Articulation 2 (SA2) voices on the Tyros are a whole other beast. SA2 uses Articulation Element Modeling (AEM) to “stitch” samples together in real-time in response to what the musician plays. The Motif XS (and later) do not have the software to analyze the musicians playing/gestures and it does not have the AEM sound engine. SA2 is not implemented on the S950. SA2 is a very complicated critter because it takes note timing into consideration. (See Yamaha’s patents on AEM.)

So, voices/samples cannot simply be ported from S950 (or Tyros) to Motif. You can, however, use XA to make your own SA-style voices without any of the front-end analysis of musical gestures/control.

Thoughts and speculation

Sometimes, I think SA is a different front-end for Mega Voices. A guitar Mega Voice, for example, uses velocity switching to trigger (one of) an open soft, open medium, open hard, dead soft, dead hard, hammer on or slide waveform for a given MIDI note played on the keyboard. Effects such as strum noise and fret noise are triggered by MIDI note numbers above C6 and c8, respectively.

An SA voice based upon the same waveforms might use velocity switching for open soft, open medium, open hard, dead soft and dead hard, while using legato notes within an interval of a fourth to trigger hammer on and slide. An articulation control button or pedal trigger strum noise. Fret noise is added randomly. Thus, the SA voice uses the same basic waveforms as the Mega Voice, but the SA voice uses different means and analysis to select, enable and render the waveforms.

Motif XS (and later) have Mega Voices. The MOX Mega Nylon voice, for example, uses seven elements:

       Elem#  Waveform                Low  High Velocity
       -----  ----------------------  ---  ---- --------
       Elem1  Nylon Open Sw St        C-2  B5   1-60
       Elem2  Nylon Dead Notes St     C-2  B5   61-75
       Elem3  Nylon Mute St           C-2  B5   76-90
       Elem4  Nylon Hammer St         C-2  B5   91-105
       Elem5  Nylon Slide St          C-2  B5   106-120
       Elem6  Nylon Harmonics St      C-2  B5   121-127
       Elem7  Nylon FX St             C6   G8   1-127

that select and play an internal waveform based upon MIDI note number and velocity. One could build a different voice that triggers the same waveforms under different conditions such as AF1 ON, AF2 ON, etc. Indeed, some of the other Mega Voices respond to AF1/2 and AS1/2. Thus, I believe that a stock Motif/MOX with XA could emulate an SA voice within certain limitations. Specific conditions like “legato within an interval of a fourth” are not supported in Motif/MOX. XA detects legato without regard for interval.

SA2 voices are based on AEM and I believe that the AWM tone generation model in the stock Motif/MOX is not enough. In AWM, each note is independent and follows the familiar attack, decay, sustain and release life-cycle. Legato based on XA merely changes the waveform that is used to render the attack of an independent note. An AEM note, on the other hand, evolves and morphs into the next note. The AEM tone generator behaves more like physical modeling than AWM’s ADSR note life-cycle. As mentioned in Yamaha’s description of AEM, the AEM tone generator does some fancy computation to correctly render vibrato through note transitions. Further, a stock Motif/MOX does not perform the timing analysis and control functions that drive AEM tone generation.

I would love to see Yamaha add AEM-based voices to future members of the Motif family!

Yamaha voice of the customer

Posted on by

The Yamaha synthesizer site has come to life, again. The site has resources for current Yamaha synthesizer products, blogs and a forum. One the forums is seeking input for future Yamaha synthesizer products. Here is my post to that forum. It’s kind of terse, but the Yamaha marketing people already have so many long messages to read through and analyze! On to the re-post…

Hi —

Thanks for listening to our feedback! To keep things short and specific, I’ve listed the likes and areas for improvement in my two current Yamaha keyboards. I understand that Tyros/PSR is made by a different product division.

My first Yamaha keyboard was a pre-MIDI CE-20, so I’ve been into electronic instruments for quite a while…

MOX6: 95% performance, 5% production
Likes:

  • + Great voices and performances in contemporary genres
  • + Deep editing everywhere
  • + 16 voices/performances/etc. available with one button push
  • + Ability to add new waveforms (MOXF)

Opportunities for improvement:

  • – Workflow
  • – Needs drawbar mode and improved rotary speaker effect
  • – SMF must be scrubbed clean in order to import without issue or error

PSR-S950: 70% production, 30% performance
Likes:

  • + Super Articulation sounds great and is intuitive to play live
  • + INFO button displays performance tips for voices including articulations
  • + Drawbar mode
  • + Reliably imports and plays SMF regardless of meta-events, etc.
  • + Immediate one-man-band playability; high fun factor

Opportunities for improvement:

  • – Voice editing is superficial
  • – Needs more contemporary content (my genres: funk, jazz, rock/pop)
  • – Effects lag synthesizer products (need VCM)
  • – Needs B-3 chorus/vibrato sim and improved rotary speaker effect
  • – Convert WAV to MP3
  • – New waveforms only through expansion pack; No expansion pack editor

Production vs. performance: MOX6 is my go-to ax for playing out. S950 is now mostly used to produce backing tracks/styles. S950 production/performance mix will shift toward performance.

Workflow: DAWs have many established, immediately visible UI metaphors (e.g., piano roll, staff view, waveform view). MOX6 has rows and rows of buttons with few cues about how to use them.

Superarticulation: Real-time note analysis triggers articulations. Don’t have to think about which button to push (MOX XA). SA 2 voices are terrific. I’ve been reading the Yamaha patents on AEM and realize that SA 2 is non-trivial.

Immediacy: People want immediate results. Turn a knob, get a response. That’s one reason why people are knocked out by SA/SA2. Nothing kills a buzz like waiting for your computer to boot or fixing a driver problem.

Content: MOX players want more arpeggios; S950 players want more styles. This is a fundamental human need. Need to be able to create or import own phrases/content. Be able to play and sync both audio and MIDI clips. Import and convert PSR styles to arpeggios?

Updates: Need to provide updates for mid-range products, too. Competitor is making “updatable OS” a sales point. Example: Update MOX to control element level through knobs (now a standard MOXF feature).

Community: Community is very important. Share riffs, voices, whatever. Community builds excitement and loyalty. Yamaha must participate. (Yamaha is already perceived as too aloof.) Publish specs for file formats and let open source development loose. Provide an open garden and let thousands of flowers bloom.

MOX internal architecture

Posted on by

Curiosity finally overcame inertia and I ordered the service manual for the Yamaha MOX6 and MOX8 workstations. (The Yamaha 24×7 part number is “S M MOX6/MOX8”.)

If you remember from my previous discussion about workstation internal architecture, the Motif XS synthesizer is Linux-based and has a 400MHz Toshiba TX4939 RISC CPU as its main processor. The TX4939 uses the MIPS instruction set and controls two SWP51L tone generator integrated circuits. Since the MOX is advertised as descendent of the Motif XS, I fully expected a MIPS architecture processor with only one SWP51L.

Check out the Yamaha MOX block diagram.

Surprise! The main processor in the MOX is the Yamaha SWX02 with an internal clock speed of 135.4725MHz. The SWX02 has an SH-2A CPU core and probably does not run Linux. The SWX02 is also used in the Yamaha PSR-S650 arranger workstation where it is clocked at the same rate. This processor seems to be Yamaha’s choice for cost-sensitive, mid-range products.

The MOX has one SWP51L tone generator IC clocked at 90.3168MHz. The SWP51L is fed by two 64MByte wave ROM ICs. The wave ROM components are Lapis Semiconductor MR26V51252R 512Mbit P2ROM devices in 32Mx16-bit configuration. One device provides a 16-bit high (H) channel and the other device provides a 16-bit low (L) channel into the SWP51L. The high and low wave ROMs communicate with the SWP51L over a 32-bit wave memory bus. The SWP51L has a separate 16MByte SDRAM on a dedicated interface to support digital signal processing (DSP). The DAC and ADC are also connected directly to the SWP51L.

The SWX02 functions primarily as a control processor. This is quite different from the PSR-S650 where the SWX02 performs tone generation as well as performing control duties. The SWX02 has its own wave memory interface and this interface is not used in the MOX. The S650 has a separate LCD controller IC. The MOX does not have a separate LCD controller and the LCD is connected to the SWX02 through its parallel general purpose I/O (GPIO) pins.

The MOX specifications describe the wave capacity as “355MB (when converted to 16-bit linear format)”. The physical wave ROM is 128MBytes total. Thus, Yamaha achieve overall wave compression of 2.78 to 1, or better.

The most interesting thing about the MOX is what it does not have. The MOX main logic board (DM) has unpopulated positions for:

  • A second SWP51L tone generator IC
  • Two additional wave ROM ICs (size unspecified) on the wave memory bus
  • An interface for a flash expansion module
  • A second WM8740 digital-to-analog converter (DAC)

Yep, Yamaha laid the ground for the MOXF. These positions are labeled “For future model” in the detailed circuit diagrams. One way to feel about that is cheated. A more rational way to view this situation is that Yamaha tries to lower cost through volume production (eventually) giving us more product for less money.

The MOX polyphony is 64 notes. The MOXF polyphony is 128 notes due, presumably, to a second SWP51L. A Motif/MOX note may use up to eight voice elements. Therefore, I infer that an SWP51L has a total tone generation capacity of 512 voice elements. Switching context to workstation arrangers for a momemnt, both the PSR-S950 and Tyros3 have 128 note polyphony. The S950 has one SWP51L and the Tyros3 has two SWP51B integrated circuits. I now believe that the S950 is a four element per voice synthesizer while the Tyros3 is known to be an eight element per voice synthesizer. (The S950 is voice compatible with the A2000, which is known to be four elements per voice.) Thus, I don’t think Super Articulation 2 (SA2) voices based on Articulation Element Modeling (AEM) technology are coming to the S950 or a new mid-range arranger workstation. Not without a second SWP51L, anyway. I’m guessing that AEM requires an eight element per voice engine.

It’s interesting to see how and where Yamaha shaved cost in order to produce a value-oriented mid-range product. It also provides geater justification for the higher cost in the upper end Motif and Tyros products.

See this article for an architectural overview of the Yamaha arranger product families.

Finally, Yamaha releases the source code for GPL’ed parts of the Motif XS, Motif XF, and S90 XS/S70 XS. See the Yamaha source code page. The MOX and MOXF are not mentioned on this page, giving further evidence that these products are not Linux-based.

MOX performance to PSR style (part 3)

Posted on by

In parts one and two, I described a way to capture Yamaha MOX performances into a Standard MIDI File (SMF) and how to translate the SMF to a PSR/Tyros style. Part three discusses Mega Voices and how to program MIDI data for a Mega Voice part such that the special articulations and effects (FX) play back correctly.

A Yamaha Mega Voice is a synthesizer or arranger workstation voice that has several sonic components. Take the MOX “Mega Finger+Slap” voice as an example. It has five components; each component is assigned to a MOX tone generator element:

Element Waveform Lower Upper Velocity
1 Finger Med C-2 B5 1-60
2 Finger Hard C-2 B5 61-80
3 Finger Dead C-2 B5 81-120
4 Thumb/Pull Hard C-2 B5 121-127
5 Electric Bass FX C6 G8 1-127
Table: Mega Finger+Slap voice elements

These components do not sound all at once! The MIDI note number and velocity trigger just one of the elements. (In this case, all components/conditions are exclusive.) One the first four elements sound when the MIDI note is between C-2 (MIDI note number 0) and B5 (MIDI note number 95). The MIDI note velocity further determines which of those four elements is triggered. The fifth element sounds when the MIDI note number is between C6 (note number 96, inclusive) and G8 with any non-zero velocity.

As Phil Clendeninn (Yamaha) points out, Mega Voices are intended to sweeten pre-programmed patterns and styles and are not intended for live keyboard playing. Human beings just cannot play notes with enough precision to reliably and accurately hit the velocity ranges. The bass voice is relatively simple; A Mega Voice guitar has as many as eight velocity zones!

The MOX also has “regular” voices that are similar to Mega Voice. The “Finger PBs AF1” voice is one example. This voice has four components:

Element Waveform Lower Upper Velocity
1 P-Bass Rndwound Med C-2 B4 1-90
2 P-Bass Rndwound Hard C-2 B4 91-127
3 Electric Bass FX C5 G8 1-127
4 Finger Harmonics C-2 B4 1-127
Table: Finger PBs AF1 voice elements

Notice that element 4 overlaps with elements 1 and 2. Element 4 sounds when the assignable function 1 (AF1) button is held. On the MOX, you can deep dive voices through the front panel and find out what makes them tick (or tock). This level of voice programming is hidden on PSR/Tyros arranger workstations. Fortunately, Yamaha have published the note and velocity ranges for workstation Mega Voices. (See the data list PDF.)

MOX and arranger workstation Mega Voices are mostly compatible. However, Yamaha do not advertise or guarantee compatibility. The MOX Electric Bass FX wave contains many more effects than a typical single arranger Mega Voice for example. You’ll need to use your ears to make sure that MIDI data for a MOX Mega Voice sound correctly with an arranger Mega Voice.

Voices such as Finger PBs AF1 resemble and behave like a Mega Voice, but do not follow typical Mega Voice conventions, such as reserving notes above C6 for FX like slides, scrapes, fret noises, etc. Regular notes with this patch sound one octave lower than a Mega Voice bass. You’ll need to transpose the incoming notes depending upon the target arranger voice. Also, if you use an arranger Mega Voice as the target, you must scale numerically the note velocities to match the Mega Voice programming. This translation requires attention to detail and a good ear!

Here’s another crazy problem although it is not Mega Voice related. In two cases, all of the notes in the MOX bass track had velocity equal to one! Coincidentally, a MOX synth bass voice was involved in both cases. I changed the note velocities to something more reasonable (and randomized) using SONAR.

As if all of this is not enough complexity, there is one further wrinkle — note transposition. The arranger transposes the MIDI notes for a part according to the transposition rule and table for the style part (and section). Mega Voice tracks, however, contain both regular notes (below C6) and FX notes (C6 and above). If the transposition rule and table transpose the regular notes, the FX notes get transposed, too, when both kinds of notes are in the same track. When the transposed notes are played back, the FX notes may get mapped to the wrong effect or to high pitched regular notes that sound totally out of place (i.e., sonic clams).

There are three solutions to this problem:

  1. Delete the FX notes from the MIDI data for the part.
  2. Split the MIDI data into two parts: regular notes and FX notes.
  3. Do what Yamaha does.

We’ll take a look at solutions 1 and 2 in a moment. Normal notes and FX notes appear together in the same Mega Voice track in a Yamaha factory style. (Crack one open with a DAW!) So, Yamaha must have an internal way to treat normal notes and effect notes differently. There is some evidence that the note transposition rules and tables can handle Mega Voice. However, this approach is not documented and it is not exposed through the keyboard (i.e., the PARAMETER tab in Style Creator) or a Yamaha-endorsed software tool. Thus, solution number 3 is not feasible for us.

Solution number 1 — delete the FX notes — is straightforward. The downside is that you lose the nuances that make a part exciting. Let’s face it, bass slides are cool and kick up the energy. If you don’t have the time, energy, knowledge or inclination, this is the way to go. Further, you may not have an unused style part available to split off the FX notes into a separate track. (The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.) In the case of MOX pseudo-Mega voices, you may still need to scale note velocities or transpose the incoming notes up (or down) one octave to match the target voice. That’s enough hassle for some folks.

Solution number 2 splits the MIDI data into two separate style parts (tracks). One of these tracks holds the regular notes and the other track holds the FX notes. SONAR has a track clone operation which makes separation a breeze. After cloning, both tracks have the same MIDI data and the same Mega Voice patch. You do need to change the MIDI channel number of the clone to the channel of an unused style part. Delete the FX notes (C6 and above) from the BASS part (channel 11). Delete the regular notes (below C6) from the clone. Style Fixer generates the correct transposition rule and table for the BASS part. You must change the transposition rule and table for the cloned part using CASM Editor. Set the rule and table of the clone to “FIXED” and “BYPASS”, respectively. Remember that the rule/table needs to be set for all sections.

Why “FIXED” and “BYPASS”? These are the settings that you would use with a drum track. Effectively, the guitar/bass effects are a kind of percussion instrument that have their own rhythm. Therefore, you want to use the note numbers as they are (FIXED) and you want to inhibit (BYPASS) note transposition.

I recommend making the split early in the style development process because you will need to make this split with a DAW. Once you’ve made the split, I strongly suggest trying the style on the PSR/Tyros right away. Take note of the sections that use FX notes. Listen carefully. Play CMaj7 which does not require transposition (assuming that the transposition root/chord is CMaj7). Can you hear the right effects in the right places? Now play a G7 chord. Do you still hear the correct effects in the right places? If the effects disappear, then you need to check the FX notes and the CASM transposition rule/table information. You can tweak the rule/table for each section on the PARAMETER tab in Style Creator when a fast repair is needed.

If you do change a style on the keyboard, remember to save the style. The keyboard may change the style format to “SFF GE” (also known as “SFF2”). CASM Editor does not currently handle SFF2. This limitation can cramp your working style [pun intended] since a style edited on the keyboard cannot be opened by CASM Editor.

MOX performance to PSR style (part 2)

Posted on by

In part one, I described how to capture Yamaha MOX arpeggios (musical phrases) in a standard MIDI file (SMF). In this part, I discuss the translation of the SMF to a Yamaha PSR/Tyros style file. This process should work for any SMF, not just an SMF from the MOX workstation.

The SMF produced by the MOX contains the notes for one or more instrument channels where each channel corresponds to a MOX performance part. If you followed the directions in part one, the phrases are arranged in an order starting with the main sections, followed by the fill sections, and finally, the break section. The SMF is raw (“stripped”) and does not contain bank select, program change, volume or pan messages. This is to our advantage since we are free to assign PSR/Tyros voices and tweak the overall mix. If you apply this process to an arbitrary SMF such as a file from the Internet, you will need to change or remove voice assignments, levels, etc. to make the MIDI data compatible with the PSR/Tyros.

The translation procedure needs four tools:

  1. A software DAW or sequencing program to massage the MIDI data.
  2. Style Fixer to insert an initial CASM section into the style.
  3. OTS Editor to add One Touch Settings to the style.
  4. CASM Editor to modify note transposition information.

Style Fixer, OTS Editor and CASM Editor are part of the excellent suite of tools written and maintained by Jørgen Sørensen. I also recommend Michael Bedesem’s MixMaster program which supports a very wide range of tweaks and tweezes. Right now, my DAW is Cakewalk SONAR LE — a little bit out of date, but it does the job. The directions below refer to SONAR although any well-featured DAW should do such as Cubase AI. You may also edit the style on the PSR/Tyros keyboard itself using its Style Creator. This is good in the latter stages of development when you need to make one or two final tweaks.

You can find links to these and other PSR/Tyros tools through the PSR Tutorial utilities page.

One major warning: A style file contains MIDI data and much more. A DAW removes the extra data (e.g., CASM and OTS) from a style file. Thus, a DAW is best during the early stages of style development. Michael’s program and Jørgen’s tools preserve the extra stuff.

Without further ado, here is the basic procedure for conversion. Be sure to save your work as you go along. Summer’s here and the time is right for brown outs.

  1. Copy the SMF from the USB jump drive to a working directory. Make a back-up just in case.
  2. Read the SMF into SONAR (or your pefered DAW). Save the work in progress as a normal SONAR project.
  3. If the MOX generated a separate track for the CMaj7 chord, delete the track. You don’t need it.
  4. Create an empty measure at the beginning of the time line. In SONAR, you accomplish this by sliding the clips back one measure in the arrangement window.
  5. Assign each track to a MIDI channel according to the Yamaha style conventions. (See table below.)
  6. Assign a PSR/Tyros voice to each track.
  7. Set the volume, pan, chorus and reverb levels for each track.
  8. Put the MIDI text marker “SFF1” at the beginning of measure one. The text for this and all MIDI text markers is case sensitive and must be spelled corrected.
  9. Put a second MIDI text marker “SInt” at the beginning of measure one.
  10. Put a MIDI text marker at the beginning of each style section. You must use names according to the Yamaha convention. You are allowed up to four main sections, up to four fill sections, and one break section.
    • Put a marker such as “Main AA” at the beginning of each main section.
    • Put a marker like “Fill In AA” at the beginning of each fill section.
    • Put the marker “Fill In BA” at the beginning of the break section.
  11. Trim and discard any extra notes at the end. You probably didn’t hit STOP fast enough when recording.
  12. Save your project for goodness sake!
  13. Write a new SMF. It must be MIDI SMF Type 0.
  14. Rename the new SMF and give it the “.STY” extension instead of “.MID”.
  15. Launch Style Fixer. Open the new file with the “.STY” extension.
  16. Click the GO button. Style Fixer rewrites the style file and inserts a default CASM section into the file.

Congratulations! At this point, you have a minimal style file. Copy this file to the USB jump drive. The PSR/Tyros should load this style file without complaint. You can read this style file into the OTS editor, the CASM editor or Mix Master, too.

Part MIDI channel
Rhythm 1 9
Rhythm 2 10
Bass 11
Chord 1 12
Chord 2 13
Pad 14
Phrase 1 15
Phrase 2 16
Table: MIDI channel layout for a style
Text marker Meaning
SFF1 Style format 1
SInt Start initialization measure
Main A, Main B, … Start MAIN style section
Fill In AA, Fill In BB, … Start FILL IN style section
Fill In BA Start BREAK style section
Intro A, Intro B, … Start INTRO style section
Ending A, Ending B, … Start ENDING style section
Table: MIDI text markers for style sections

Once you have a minimal style file, I strongly suggest a quick test on the PSR/Tyros. At this stage of development, you can easily make changes to the SONAR project and regenerate a new minimal style without losing much time or work. I try to get a good mix on the keyboard and then adjust the mix parameters (i.e., levels, pan, etc.) in the SONAR project to match. The MOX produces at most four tracks and “back porting”
the mix into the SONAR project is not much of a burden.

When the mix is satisfactory, launch OTS Editor and open the new style file. Here you can import existing OTS configurations into the new style file or add a new OTS configuration from scratch.

The so-called “CASM” section of a style file specifies how MIDI notes are transposed. Recall that we played a CMaj7 chord on the MOX and that the arpeggiator generated notes using CMaj7 as the root chord. The CASM section tells the PSR/Tyros how to change those notes in response to chords played in the left hand part of the keyboard. The default CASM inserted by Style Fixer is usually good enough; the bass channel uses the bass rules, the drum channels bypass transposition, and so forth. Mega Voices or MOX voices that are similar to Mega Voices, however, cause additional complications. A Mega Voice track consists of regular notes and special effect notes. The regular notes should be transposed and the special effect notes should bypass transposition. Yikes! I will discuss Mega Voice handling in part three. In the meantime, you may hear some odd plucks and wheezes when you play back a minimal style with Mega Voice data.

Here’s a little bit of background information to help you understand some of the steps in the conversion procedure.

A style file begins with an initialization measure. The “SInt” marker indicates the start of the initialization measure. You may put any MIDI initialization messages into this measure, usually at beat one. You should not put any notes in the initialization measure. Controller messages and SysEx messages are OK.

The MIDI text markers indicate the start of the style sections. Be sure to spell the markers correctly. The keyboard automatically determines the section length. If a section appears to be missing or is too long when the style is loaded into the keyboard, then you might have misspelled a section name. Remember, the text markers are case sensitive.

The PSR/Tyros only recognizes up to four main sections, four fill sections, one break section, four introductions and four endings. If a section type is not present in the style file, the keyboard doesn’t turn on the LED in the button corresponding to the missing section. Given that a MOX performance may not have four main sections, for example, the PSR/Tyros style may not have four main sections and some of the LEDs will not be lit when the style is loaded. You can always create new sections if you wish. MOX performances do not have introductions and endings, so you may want to add a simple count-in introduction or tag ending. I have a style file with simple introductions and endings. I use copy and paste to insert them into a new style file.

Main, introduction and ending sections may be 1 to 255 measures in length. Fill and break sections are always one measure long.

Jørgen’s website has a wealth of information about styles including a PDF on style writing. Yamaha styles can be quite complicated. Don’t get discouraged and keep plugging away!

Check out part three of this series.