Make music with MMS on a PSR

Yamaha Mobile Music Sequencer includes features for Motif, MOX and Tyros5, but did you know that you can create music using MMS on your PSR arranger? Yes, you can!

I’m using MMS with both the Yamaha PSR-E443 and PSR-S950 and I have written up a tutorial on making music with MMS on PSR/Tyros. This article concentrates on set-up, MIDI voice selection and MIDI file export which are aspects not covered by the MMS manual. The tutorial complements the many on-line videos that demonstrate composition and mix down. In particular, I show how to use the full 128 voice General MIDI voice set in the PSR, thereby expanding your sonic palette beyond the limited range of voices built into MMS.

Enjoy and keep on keepin’ on!

Scat voice expansion pack

I’m pleased to release version 1 of my jazz scat voice expansion pack for Yamaha PSR-S950 and PSR-S750 arranger workstations. The expansion pack has five PSR voices which let you create “Take 6” style, a cappella arrangements and other kinds of jazz voice performances. Give the MP3 demo a try!

Four of the PSR voices are individual syllables: DOO, DOT, BOP and DOW. The DOO syllable is looped and let’s you create sustained chords for backing. The DOT, BOP and DOW syllables are short and provide scat-like expression. All four syllables are combined into a velocity-switched voice where you select and play one of the syllables based on how hard you strike the keys (i.e., MIDI note velocity). You will need to adjust touch response (and practice!) to get the most playable and musical result.

Here is a link to the expansion pack file. You need to download and UNZIP this file, then install the YEP file by following the directions in the Yamaha PSR-S950/PSR-S750 Owner’s Manual. See the section titled “Expanding Voices”.

I am also releasing the multi-samples that I used to create the expansion pack in case you would like to create a scat voice for your own synthesizer or software instrument. If you are curious about how I created the expansion pack voices and the samples, please see this blog post.

Both the scat voice expansion pack and the scat voice samples are released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
ScatVoices and ScatVoice samples by Paul J. Drongowski are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

You are free to use the expansion pack voice or samples (even for commercial purposes) as long as you provide a link to http://sandsoftwaresound.net from your own web site AND/OR explicitly credit me in your creative work, e.g., “Scat samples/voice by Paul J. Drongowski”.

Vocaloid is not just for anime!

As I mentioned in my last post, I’m developing a new sample-based voice for the Yamaha PSR-S750/S950 arranger workstations. Roland is famous for its “jazz scat” voice which uses velocity-switching to trigger syllables like DOO, DAT, BOP and DOW at pitch. This synth voice is good for a cappella-like arrangements (think “Take 6”) or free melody lines. It’s a real boon for those of us with weak natural voices and technique.

The Roland scat voice incorporates samples from the Spectrasonics Vocal Planet library produced by Eric Persing and Roby Duke. Although these are great sounds/samples, I want to distribute both the workstation voice (as an expansion pack) and the samples within. I intend to make my work available under a Creative Commons attribution license. Thus, I want and need to produce fully original samples in order to avoid copyright and licensing issues.

The quest

These goals and desires launched a month-long quest for suitable “scat” samples. I decided to base the scat voice on the four syllables DOO, DOT, BOP and DOW where the DOOs are looped and the other syllables are one-shots. The DOOs are triggered at relatively low velocity and provide a pad-like bed while the DOTs, BOPs and DOWs provide short staccato accents/melody. The voice implementation requires a set of multi-samples for each syllable where the multi-samples are spread across the natural range of the human voice (F3 to F6 where C5 is middle C).

Freesound.org has a few individual sounds, but nothing in the way of multi-samples across a range of pitches. I next decided to try sampling my own voice. A few tentative attempts left me highly discouraged! I’m a baritone with a relatively small range — definitely not F3 to F6! Plus, I lack training and my technique is not particularly good.

I then began to experiment with vocoding. I was hoping to achieve loopable, pitch-accurate samples by using my voice as a formant and imposing my voice on a pitch accurate synth sound (the carrier). I experimented with the vocoders in the PSR-S950 and the Yamaha MOX6 workstation. The MOX6 vocoder is great at producing dance-floor sounds, but not so good at producing more natural vocal sounds suitable for jazz.

Not to be too cagey, I eventually found good use for the S950 vocoder and will describe this process in a separate post. Before I went in that direction, however, I discovered and tried Yamaha’s Vocaloid.

Vocaloid

Here is how Yamaha describes Vocaloid.

Vocaloid is a technology for singing voice synthesis developed by Yamaha, and the name of this software application. The software allows users to input melody and lyrics in order to synthesize singing. In other words, with this technology, singing can be produced without a singer. Singing voice synthesis is produced by using fragments of voices recorded from actual singers, called the Singer Library.

To a user, Vocaloid consists of two parts: the Vocaloid editor and one or more libraries. Generally, Yamaha does not provide the libraries and prefers to license the Vocaloid technology to third parties (like Zero-G) who develop libraries using their own artists.

Vocaloid has an active and enthusiastic on-line community among anime enthusiasts. There are Japanese and English singer libraries for various anime characters or personas. These singers are not appropriate for jazz! Fortunately, there are a few singer libraries for pop and classical vocals.

Mini-review

Vocaloid is not inexpensive. The full Vocaloid version 3 editor is about $160USD and individual Vocaloid 3 singer libraries are $150USD. Thus, it’s hard to take a casual drive by the latest Vocaloid technology and give it a try. Vocaloid 4 has just been announced along with Cyber Diva. Pricing, unfortunately, has not budged.

Luckily, Zero-G has a fire sale on a few individual Vocaloid 2 libraries which include the version 2 editor. I bought the Zero-G Tonio library for $50USD. This is a much smaller amount to gamble in order to get a taste.

Tonio is an opera singer. The Tonio demo is very good (it’s opera!) and after messing with Vocaloid and Tonio, someone sank a lot of work into that demo! You can get very nice results from Vocaloid if you are willing to spend countless hours tweezing a performance. I recommend the on-line Vocaloid reviews at Sound on Sound Magazine. The reviews are right on the money and provide useful information to help get you started with Vocaloid. (SOS is great that way.)

To make a long story very short, you edit the vocal performance in the editor by entering lyrics into a piano roll editor. You then change the attack, vibrato and other aspects of the vocal performance. These tweaks are essential for getting a good result.

Ultimately, Tonio is an opera singer and his vocal characteristics are a distinct part of the vocal samples that underlie the singer library. There ain’t no way to turn this nice Italian boy out and make him sing pop! He isn’t Bruno Mars. Please keep this in mind if you decide to try Vocaloid in a project of your own. Make sure that the voice library is a simpatico match with the target genre/style. This is why I moved on from Tonio and Vocaloid for the scat voice project.

The technology

Yamaha has invested heavily in the Vocaloid technology and have filed many patents. They are conducting joint research with The Music Technology Group (MTG) of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona. The MTG, by the way, are the people behind the Freesound.org web site.

Vocaloid does a lot of intense digital signal processing (DSP). It modifies and concatenates sound in the frequency domain. It performs a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) to convert from the time domain to the frequency domain, modifies the spectral characteristics of the sound, and then performs an inverse FFT to return to the time domain. This is too much computation to perform in real-time. Thus, there is always a delay while Vocaloid renders a performance before playback.

Yamaha protects its intellectual property (IP) through patents and rarely publishes results in the scientific literature. Vocaloid is an exception, probably due to the partnership with MTG. Here is a short list of a few papers on Vocaloid and its technology.

  • Singing synthesis as a new musical instrument, Hideki Kenmochi, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, 2012 (ICASSP 2012).
  • Sample-based singing voice synthesizer by spectral concatenation, Jordi Bonada and Alex Loscos, Proceedings of the Stockholm Music Acoustics Conference, August 6-9, 2003 (SMAC 03).
  • VOCALOID – Commercial singing synthesizer based on sample concatenation, Hideki Kenmochi and Hayato Ohshita, International Speech Communication Association (ISCA), Interspeech 2007.

You don’t need to know all of this to use Vocaloid, but it’s good to know that there is cutting edge science behind the product.

I strongly recommend the developer interview with Michael Wilson which is published at the Vocaloid US web site. The interview gives insight into the incredible amount of work and detail behind the development of the latest library, Cyber Diva. This interview is extremely informative. Thanks, Michael. Articles such as this one bridge the gap between vacuous press releases and scientific papers giving everyone a greater appreciation for the technology behind a product.

It is also the best case to be made against software piracy. Innovation, research and development is fueled by money. Cheat developers out of their just payment only if you wish to kill off future innovation!

The Vocaloid technology reminds me a little bit of Super Articulation 2 (SArt2) on Tyros. SArt2 concatenates tones together to product realistic articulations such as legato and glissando. SArt2 works in the time domain and computes in real time although latency remains a very practical concern. (There are patents.) Perhaps someday when sufficient parallel processing resources are inexpensive, there will be an SArt3 that computes in the frequency domain.

PSR-E443: Snap review

Ah, it’s always fun to post a “first impressions” review of a new toy! In this case, the Yamaha PSR-E443 portable arranger.

I like to use a battery powered keyboard at rehearsals since an all-in-one sets up and tears down without a lot of work. Up to this point, I’ve been playing an old Yamaha PSR-273. The 273 first made the scene in 2003, so it was definitely time for an update.

The PSR-E443 is the top of the entry-level portable keyboards from Yamaha. It has 61 keys and a built-in stereo sound system comprising two woofers and two tweeters. The E443 is powered by either an AC adapter (PA-150) or six AA batteries. So far, I’ve only used an AC adapter and don’t have a feel for battery life. Fortunately, the MOX6 uses the same PS-150 adapter and I didn’t need to buy yet another adapter. (The E443 does not ship with an AC adapter.)

For the sake of review, I played similar styles and MIDI songs on the old PSR-273 and the more expensive PSR-S950 arranger workstation ($250 street for the E443 version $1,900 street for the S950). The E443 sells for about the same price as a mid-range “boutique” guitar pedal. Given that the E443 consists of a computer-based sound generator, analog-to-digital converter (ADC) for the auxiliary audio input,
LCD display, keyboard and media content (e.g., styles, DJ patterns, voices), it’s quite a manufacturing feat to deliver a fun, usable product at such an aggressive price point!

In terms of build quality, you definitely get what you pay for. The build quality of the old PSR-273 seems to be more robust than the E443. Yamaha definitely has taken cost of the E443 in order to sell it for a $250 street price. Although the E443 is a reasonable solid product for the home, it would definitely not hold up on the road. The push buttons do not have the same solid feel as the S950 (or the MOX synthesizer) and one needs (and should use) a gentle touch when pressing buttons. Cosmetically, the only really bothersome observation is the obvious difference between the top C key and the rest of the keys in the key bed. The top C is an add-on key which is not aligned evenly with the rest of the keys and which has a slightly different color (shade of white) than the other white keys. In comparison, the old 273 and the more expensive S950 have nice even keys and consistent key color.

The E443 has a somewhat “retro” sound set augmented by many additional voices that were added over the history of the E4xx series. The E443 and 273 share many of the same panel voices which is a little disappointing. These common voices sound somewhat better on the E443 due to better effects, equalization and sound system. However, with only a few exceptions, the panel voices in common share the same waveforms. One of the exceptions are the string voices. The E443 strings sound much better especially in the lower octaves.

The XG sound set is definitely a step up from the 273 although the S950 XG sound set is at a still higher quantum level in quality. I played the same commercial XG file (“Smooth Operator” by Sade) through all three instruments. The 273 is truly pathetic, the E443 is acceptable, and the S950 is not too bad at all. The E443 does not have the benefit of the XG variation (DSP) effects as available on the S950 and the solo sax sounded just a tad naff. However, I think a typical consumer would be happy with MIDI file playback through the E443; it definitely beats the Microsoft wavetable synthesizer!

Although it sounds a bit negative at this point in the review, the E443 definitely shines brighter than the 273 due to the additional, augmented panel voices. These voices include the several “Cool” and “Sweet” voices, three dynamic velocity-switched voices, a handful of newer voices like “Woodwind Section”, and the many “DJ” synthesizer voices that were added to implement the DJ patterns. There are also some wonderful world voices like Trumpeta Banda and Harmonium. The sound designers also added a few dozen dual (layered) voices. Even though the dual panel voices use the same waveforms as normal non-layered panel voices, many of these dual panel voices are fatter, very playable and usable. I’m looking forward to using these “newer” voices and the improved strings at rehearsals.

The area where the E443 shines brighter than the S950 (!) is the real-time tweaking provided by the two sound control knobs on the front panel. Even though I’m not a huge synth enthusiast, I used the knobs to tweeze voices like the dynamic overdriven guitar while jamming over a style. I’m now sold on having a few knobs around for real-time tweaking and would love to see a couple of knobs on the mid-range arranger workstations. Pressing up/down buttons in the S950 mixing console just doesn’t have the same feel or immediacy. Further, a quick check with MIDI-OX shows that the E443 sends MIDI CC messages for cut-off frequency, resonance, reverb level, chorus level, attack time and release time when the appropriate knob is twisted.

The E443 also has some advantages over the S650 (the next model up in the arranger family). The E443 supports limited voice programming and stores the same six voice parameters for the main and dual voice. These voice parameters are stored in registration memory. This makes the E443 voices tweakable. The S650 lacks even this rudimentary level of voice editing.

Like voices, the styles are a mix of old and new. The styles include many old chestnuts like “Cool8Beat.” The older styles sound better through the improved sound system, but they retain the same essential phrases. The newer styles, especially those in the “Dance” category create more excitement. There are also a few fun additions in the Latin and World categories. Each style has a “One Touch Setting” (OTS) voice that selects a voice that Yamaha deemed to be appropriate for the style. Of course, this is somewhat hit or miss as personal taste and preference varies. There are a few surprises like a very nice Sweet Flute and Piano layer.

The E443 is reasonably adept at playing commercial styles in the original (and older) Style File Format (also known as “SFF” or “SFF1”). I played the styles in the MIDI Spot Soul and Blues pack and got a fairly decent result. These styles were developed for the PSR-9000 (circa 2000). It goes to show that good programming and musicality trumps mere technology! I had more trouble getting the recent “HappyBeat” style to sound decent even though Musicsoft sells this style as “PSR-E443 compatible.” It isn’t just a difference in voicing — the actual harmony sounds off and discordant. I am increasingly disappointed in Musicsoft’s notion of “compatibility.”

I successfully played back the DJX II patterns which I have been converting for PSR. More about this in a future post.

Speaking of DJ patterns, we finally are getting to the E443 functionality that makes it unique in the current arranger product line! There are twenty EDM patterns. I don’t work in the genre, so I’m not really qualified to speak to their currency or quality. However, I do know that EDM styles change with lightning speed! I also know that you cannot load new (user) patterns into the E443. You have to be happy with what Yamaha have provided. Yamaha, even if you continue to keep the internal patterns locked up — a user cannot save or play the patterns to a MIDI file or data stream — please, please, please add the ability to load new patterns. This capability would really enhance the product and create a community of developers around the E4xx series. As Patti Smith said, “This is the era when everyone creates.”

I like the Old Skool and R&B Smooth patterns the best, but that’s just me. Old Skool immediately brings up memories of Grandmaster Flash and “The Message.” Each pattern seems to have an OTS voice (panel voice number 000). The R&B Smooth pattern’s OTS brings up a nice Sweet Flute and Voice Lead layer.

The E443 has 150 arpeggios (musical phrases) for additional instant, real-time fun. The arpeggios track and respond to notes played with the right hand. (BTW, with the main, dual and split voice capability, you can play a left hand bass along with a two-voice layer with your right hand.) Wisely, there are also forty arpeggios voices which automatically bring up a voice and an appropriate arp. This makes it easy to jump into arpeggios without having to do any configuration. Of course, you can change the arp type, voice, etc. to come up with new combinations.

Between the DJ patterns and arpeggios, the E443 approaches the capabilities of the MM6/MM8 “Mini Mo” workstation. The Mini Mo had DSP effects and a smattering of Motif voices, but the E443 has more voice editing and more user style locations — all at a much lower price. If you crave the old MM6/MM8 patterns, they are available through the Yamaha Mobile Music Sequencer (MMS), where Yamaha have re-purposed them. I tried MMS with the E443 and I’m happy to report that you can drive the E443 with MMS on iPad with a little knowledge and consideration of how MMS selects General MIDI voices and drum kits. This is a subject for another day.

The E443 has a pretty decent range of drum kits. Some of the kits have been around the loop once too often and lack punch. When I was experimenting with the DJX II patterns, I noticed that the E443 Dance Kit is the older version of the Dance Kit and has been assigned a different program change number (#113) than the most current kit on the S950. This may be an issue for content creators more so than regular players.

The E443 user interface is a significant refinement of the old PSR-273 era interface. The E443 provides many direct access buttons where you just need to hold a button for a little while in order to be taken to the appropriate editing screen. Further, Yamaha have made it much easier to navigate through the “Function” menu. In the 273 era, one had to repeatedly push the function button to step sequentially through the function menu. With the E443, you navigate through the function menu using the category buttons which do double duty as up and down. Another nice improvement is the transpose button on the front panel. On the 273, I would often skip past the transpose screen and have to circle all the way around the menu. This is a true pain at rehearsals as our music director will often call for a new key right on the spot.

Overall, the E443 is “something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.” For the street price, it’s hard to find a better value in both sound quality and fun!

Mining the Yamaha DJX II

Update: Follow this link to download a free collection of PSR/Tyros DJX-II styles.

Time to party like it’s 1999!

The Yamaha DJX II was the second generation of Yamaha “DJ” keyboards that were targeted for musicians/producers working in “dance” styles (e.g., tekno, hip-hop, drum’n’bass, etc.) Thus, the DJX II uses loop-like “patterns” as its basic musical element instead of arranger styles. The DJX II is best remembered for its unusual keyboard; Some octaves had white whole note keys while other octaves used grey. That’s because different octaves controlled different functions like selecting a pattern to play or transposing a pattern.

The DJX II had a selection of fairly decent patterns in different dance-oriented genres. Although I’ve never heard a DJX, it’s sound was probably hobbled a little bit by the sound set. The DJX II had only 4MBytes of wave ROM! The internal and external patterns are available for download from the Yamaha support site. Seems like a place to find and mine some useable musical phrases, and naturally, I’m looking for the funk. The target keyboard is the PSR-S950 arranger workstation.

The ZIP files from Yamaha unpack into a bunch of standard MIDI files (SMF). Each SMF contains a group of ten, musically related patterns that form a construction set. The SMF has a small amount of set up information at the beginning: General MIDI reset, reverb type select and chorus type select messages. Each pattern within the SMF begins with a MIDI text marker from “1” to “10”. In order to convert the SMF for the PSR-S950, I changed these markers to arranger style markers (e.g., “Main A,” “Intro A,” etc.) and added “SFF1” and “SInt” markers to the first measure. The new marker name determines the method by which the arranger will play the pattern. More about this in a second.

As I mentioned above, the DJX patterns are assigned to keys such that a single key press plays a particular pattern. The patterns are laid out according to black and white keys as follows:

Pattern  Type  Key color
-------  ----  ---------
1        Main  White
2        Fill  Black
3        Main  White
4        Fill  Black
5        Main  White
6        Main  White
7        Fill  Black
8        Main  White
9        Fill  Black
10       Main  White

Main patterns are on the white keys and fill patterns are on the black keys. Fill patterns are not restricted to one measure; a pattern may be anywhere from 1 to 256 measures in length.

Given these considerations, you may need to be a bit creative when assigning a pattern to an arranger section. Please recall that arranger introduction, ending and main sections may be 1 to 256 measures in length. Fill-in and break sections are limited to one measure. A DJX “fill” pattern may be greater than one measure and cannot always be assigned to an arrange fill-in section. Further, you may not even want to assign the fill pattern this way, preferring to invoke the pattern from one of the section buttons instead. The three introduction buttons (sections) are good destinations for a “fill” pattern because the section acts like a manually controlled fill button. The arranger will play the fill pattern (introduction) and then automatically proceed to the selected main section.

Patterns assigned to arranger ending sections are a little problematic. An arranger ending will stop playback unless another section is selected. You’ll need to fast finger the arranger buttons when jamming.

Even though this seems complicated, it’s not really. The more difficult and time-consuming part is dealing with the drum sets and note mappings.

First, some background is needed. The DJX channel layout is very different than the arranger channel layout. Here is the layout for the 53_Soul pattern file, which is typical of all DJX II SMFs:

Channel  DJX PC#     DJX voice         S950 voice/kit
-------  ----------  ------------      --------------
9        126   0  3  BD Kit        --> Real Drums
10       126   0  4  SD Kit        --> Real Drums
11       126   0  1  B900 Kit      --> Hip Hop Kit
12       127   0  5  Analog Kit1   --> Analog Kit
13       0   112 34  Pick Bass     --> Pick Bass
14       0     0  1  Bright Piano  --> Bright Piano
15       0   112 17  Jazz Organ    --> Organ
16       0   113 27  60's Clean    --> Tremolo Guitar

Channels 9 to 12 are rhythm, channel 13 is bass, and channels 14 to 16 are phrases. By (un)convention, channel 9 is bass drum, channel 10 is snare drum, channel 11 is high hat and channel 12 is percussion. Channels 9 to 12 must be set up as drum parts:

F0 43 10 4C 08 08 07 01 F7
F0 43 10 4C 08 09 07 01 F7
F0 43 10 4C 08 0A 07 01 F7
F0 43 10 4C 08 0B 07 01 F7

These System Exclusive (SysEx) messages must be added to the initialization part of the SMF in order to select different drum kits independently under XG.

You’ll need to choose new drum kits for the rhythm channels since the DJX II has its own unique, non-standard kits. This part is totally creative. Who’s to say what the new style should sound like? If it moves your booty, then it’s a winner! Fortunately, the bass drum, snare drum and hi-hat channels seem to use these drum instruments exclusively. This narrows the re-mapping problem. I remapped the kick first just to get a listenable groove going and then tackled the snare followed by the hi-hat. The following chart lists the DJX II drum kits and the roughly equivalent S950 drum kit.

DJX II drum kit           S950 drum kit
------------------------  ------------------------
127 0  5 Analog Kit1      127 0  25 AnalogKit
                          126 0   8 AnalogSet     [GM]
127 0  8 Analog Kit2      127 0  58 AnalogT8Kit   [Major update]
127 0 10 Analog Kit3      127 0  59 AnalogT9Kit   [Major update]
127 0 13 Analog Kit1D     127 0  58 AnalogT8Kit   [Distorted version]
127 0 14 Analog Kit2D     127 0  59 AnalogT9Kit   [Distorted version]
127 0 12 RhBox Kit
127 0  9 Hard Kit
127 0 11 Break Kit        127 0  57 BreakKit
127 0  6 Dance Kit        127 0  27 DanceKit      [Major update]
127 0  4 Electronic Kit1  127 0  24 ElectroKit
                          126 0   3 ElectronicSet [GM]

126 0  0 Electronic Kit2
126 0  1 B900 Kit
126 0  2 DJX Kit                  HipHopKit?
126 0  3 BD Kit
126 0  4 SD Kit
126 0  5 HH Kit
126 0  6 Human Kit        
126 0  7 Scratch Kit

127 0  0 Standard Kit1    127 0  0 Standard Kit1  [Legacy]
127 0  1 Standard Kit2    127 0  1 Standard Kit2  [Legacy]
127 0  2 Room Kit         127 0  8 RoomKit
                          126 0  1 RoomSet        [GM]
127 0  3 Rock Kit         127 0 16 RockKit        [Legacy]
127 0  3 Rock Kit         127 0 90 RockKit2
127 0  7 Jazz Kit         127 0 32 JazzKit
                          126 0 35 JazzSet        [GM]

The DJX-specific kits (BD kit, SD kit, B900 kit, etc.) do not remotely follow General MIDI-ish conventions. It takes a lot of note mapping to get these drum patterns to play sensibly. I recommend playing back the SMF from a DAW (like Sonar) while tweaking the SMF. Do not attempt note remapping on the arranger — you’ll only drive yourself crazy!

Chord progressions are part of the patterns, so the melody/chord phrases need to be transposed like introductions and endings. Please review Note Transposition Rules (NTR) and Note Transposition Tables (NTT) before forging ahead. Since the channel layout is unconventional, the CASM information must be changed to be consistent with the MIDI channel data. Channels 9 to 12 are configured for rhythm NTT/NTR (root fixed, bypass) and the Channels 13 to 16 are configured for intro/ending NTT/NTR (root transpose, bypass). The chord root must be changed to match the phrases (53_Soul: Fm7, 59_ClubFunk: Dm7). You’ll need to identify the root (the musical key) either by ear or by analyzing the chord harmony.

Tool-wise, I did most of the editing in Sonar X3. I used Jørgen Sørensen’s CASM editor ( http://www.jososoft.dk/yamaha ) to create the CASM section for the style and to change the NTR, NTT and chord root information. Special thanks go to Jørgen for creating such great and helpful tools!

Oh, yeah, the final results. Here is a link to the ZIP file containing the 53_Soul and 59_ClubFunk styles. Enjoy!

SA and SA2: Is Motif up to the task?

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

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

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.

Yamaha: The business

We musicians like to dream about new electronic musical instruments or even just simple improvements to the instruments that we already own. Everyone likes to think that their specific needs are indicative of the general market, and gosh, “Why doesn’t Yamaha (or whoever) realize that this is important?”

Well, like any other business, Yamaha or any other musical instrument manufacturer needs to make a business decision before committing money to a new product or product improvements. This rather obvious notion led me to find out more about Yamaha as a business.

A good place to start is the Yamaha annual report. Here are links to the 2012 and
2013 annual reports. There is way to much to summarize here, so here are a few brief observations and information from the 2013 report.

Yamaha has a new president: Takuya Nakata. One of the four key strategies is to expand sales in the electronics business domain (digital keyboard instruments, PA equipment and ICT devices). The priority in digital keyboard instruments is to 1. expand market share through product differentiation and 2. Respond to various market demand. The annual report doesn’t give any details as I’m sure that Yamaha’s competitors would be interested in that information, too! However, as an example, I will say that Yamaha is strong in the regionalization of its arranger keyboards, providing many region-specific expansion packs with ethnic styles and sounds.

Yamaha is clearly a global company and manufactures instruments in Japan and other locations. Labor costs are rising in Chinese and Indonesian factories. Yamaha has significant exposure to exchange rate volatility. These factors put considerable pressure on corporate finances.

The 2013 report has a long Q&A with the president. Here is an interesting quote from Mr. Nakata-san:

Q: What are Yamaha’s key strategies for the future?
A: Our priority business strategy is, naturally, to accelerate growth in China and other emerging markets. Our target is to achieve growth of 30% or more over the next three years. China is a market where acoustic piano sales accounts for more than half of musical instrument sales, but, with lifestyles changing due to urbanization, we expect major growth, particularly in digital musical instruments. With the goal of increasing the music-playing population and expanding the market, Yamaha is constantly increasing the number of Yamaha Music Schools and providing music instruction at schools in both markets. We will continue to increase the size of our marketing staff, including staff in other emerging markets, and develop and fortify our sales network.

Turning to products, we will continue to pursue our strategy of expansion in the electronics business domain. Our plan is to achieve sales growth of about 30% over the next three years in digital keyboard instruments, professional audio equipment, and information and communications technology (ICT) devices. Digital keyboard instruments are a promising field of growth in the previously mentioned markets of China and other emerging countries. However, the challenge we face is this: can we assess customer needs, focus on what the customer wants, and provide it at a suitable price? More than ever, Yamaha will develop products that are finely tailored to market needs with sound that is genuine, with style and tone data that take into account local preferences, and offer original and appealing products that excite customers.

The report has a map showing market priorities. Yamaha is definitely looking for growth in China, India, Russia, Africa and South America (notably, Brazil). We should expect to see more instruments that are specifically targeted for these regions.

What is an annual report without the numbers?

Overall sales/income
  2013 net sales: 366.9 billion yen
  Operating income: 9.2 billion yen
  Net income: 4.1 billion yen
  ROE: 1.9%

That’s 3.58 billion US dollars. Investors cannot be happy with such a low return on equity (ROE). Intel and Apple, for example, have an ROE of 18% and 31%, respectively. That’s probably why there is a new president.

Musical instruments provide the majority of sales:

Sales by business segment
  Musical instruments   74.3%
  AV/IT                 15.1%
  Electronic devices     4.1%
  Others                 6.5%

Sales by region
  Japan                 45.2%
  Asia, Oceania, other  23.2%
  Europe                16.5%
  North America         15.0%

Yep, Yamaha does make other stuff (e.g., golf equipment!) The 4-cylinder engine in my ten year old Pontiac Vibe was made by Yamaha. Regionally, Japan is still a very important market for Yamaha.

Musical instrument sales were 2.66 billion US dollars in 2013.

Musical instruments
  Sales:                272.7 billion yen
  Operating income:     8.1 billion yen

Now we get to the good stuff about musical instruments. Here are two breakdowns:

Musical instruments sales by product category
  Pianos                15.0%
  Digital musical instr 22.9%
  Wind instruments      11.1%
  String and percussion  7.3%
  Professional audio    11.7%
  Music schools, etc.   32.0%

Musical instruments sales by region
  Japan                 42.8%
  Asia, Oceania, other  16.9%
  Europe                16.7%
  North America         15.2%
  China                  8.4%

Most of the sales from “Music schools, etc.” is in Japan. It’s interesting that a large part of Yamaha’s revenue comes from educational services and not products! Further, this source of revenue is mainly in Japan. In North America, roughly one third of sales are guitar and drum sales.

The digital music instrument (DMI) category includes digital pianos, Electone organs, portable keyboards and synthesizers. Thus, when we complain about this workstation feature or that synthesizer sound, or whatever, our workstation or synth is really just a small part of bigger, global picture. Because Yamaha is foremost a manufacturing company, executives must carefully allocate development funds and capital. I do wonder, though, how much Yamaha regards itself as a software company and how much attention software is given.

The report notes that more than half of sales in China are acoustic piano sales. There probably is real sales opportunity for DMI in China.

I wish there was a further breakdown within product category. I’m sure the breakdown is in a 200 slide PowerPoint deck somewhere inside Yamaha. 🙂 This level of info is not usually available in an annual report.

Yamaha have clearly been hit by the global collapse/slowdown of recent years. The chronically stagnant Japanese economy cannot be a positive factor as well. The annual report also cites business disruption and effects due to the Great East Japan Earthquake.

Well, there it is — a quick marketing picture of Yamaha as a business. I wonder how they will differentiate their products? Hmmm…

MOX performance to PSR style (part 3)

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.