I just tried the filter the moxf and it’s cool.

But the filter is horrible.

If it’s the same engine as the xf why does the filter on the moxf have the worst digital stepping i’ve ever heard on any keyboard?

Because you haven’t heard enough other keyboards with stepping filters?  Just kidding.

Are you referring to manual filter sweeps? Sweeps under EG or LFO control are perfectly smooth.

Yeah, I definitely hear the midi increment steps when manually sweeping the filters. Although most keyboardists view this as undesirable, I think of it as a quirk that gives an alternative sort of sweep effect. Not to be making excuses, but it is such a common phenomenon when filters are driven by the 128 discrete steps allowed by MIDI that I’ve sort of learned to embrace it as a different sort of “normal” behavior. Admittedly, it’s not the normal behavior one wants when trying to emulate the effect of a manual filter sweep on a MiniMoog.

Does anyone have ideas about how to manipulate smooth modulation controllers (lie LFOs or envelope generators) in order to overcome the stepping effect? I don’t know how it would be possible, because any manual manipulation of a modulation control still ultimately gets back to the discrete values available via midi.

The stepping isn’t due to an inherent limitation of MIDI. When more than one data byte (7-bit value) is used, the problem can be averted. It more typically has to do with the way a manufacturer implements things. In many cases, the A/D conversion being used for the physical controllers is where the number of steps is limited. This is not something that only the MOXF or Yamaha products exhibit, by the way.

Thanks for the clarification. Shortly after I wrote the previous post, I found myself wondering what MIDI had to do with it when internal controllers are being used. The essential point is the same though, only 7 bits = 128 discrete values are being used for the control--just like MIDI. And yes, this is very common in both hard synths and soft synths.

Lots of responses excusing the poor filter, but not a real justification lol
The filter sounds great static, but is compeltely horrible when manual sweeping, with the knobs. It’s literally the worst stepping filter i’ve ever heard on my life.
What i ask is the filter response so bad if this is the same engine as the motif xf, wich i pretty smooth.

Not that this is very important in the decision to buy it but i’m honestly curious.

There’s something to consider when discussing audibility of stepping. It doesn’t just relate to the number of steps, but also what the total range is of the parameter being swept. Let’s say that a particular parameter has a range of 128 “units” - in that case, a control with 128 steps will change the value of the parameter by one “unit” with each step, which might be very audible.

If instead we limit the parameter’s controllable range to 32 “units”, each of the control’s 128 steps will only change the parameter’s value by 1/4 “unit”. That’s likely to sound much smoother than before. We haven’t changed the number of steps, just the amount of change per step.

This sort of thing can easily be demonstrated by listening to how smooth pitch bend sounds when its range is set to 2 semitones versus setting the range to 24 semitones.

Using MIDI-OX as a monitor, I’ve verified with my Motif XF that the the knobs output values from 00h at full CCW to 7Fh at full CW, incrementing by a value of “one” (128 discrete values). It would be interesting to determine if that’s any different with the MOXF.
 

DNGmaestro - 24 November 2013 03:19 PM

[...]The filter sounds great static, but is compeltely horrible when manual sweeping, with the knobs. It’s literally the worst stepping filter i’ve ever heard on my life.
What i ask is the filter response so bad if this is the same engine as the motif xf, wich i pretty smooth.[...]

Since I have an XS and an XF, but not the MOXF, I’m not sure what you’re hearing. I’d like to try whatever it is that you’re doing with the MOXF on my XF, so could you be specific as to Voice, etc?

On the moxf pick any voice, preferably one with lots of high and low end (a “fat” bass for example") , up the resonance a bit, and sweep the cutoff.

You realize those KNOBS are offsets to the actual filter cutoff frequency and resonance amounts of as many as eight separate actual filters.
By just picking “any Voice” you can’t really know what you are doing with that filter knob (can you?) just saying…

Bad_Mister - 25 November 2013 01:23 AM

You realize those KNOBS are offsets to the actual filter cutoff frequency and resonance amounts of as many as eight separate actual filters.
By just picking “any Voice” you can’t really know what you are doing with that filter knob (can you?) just saying…

Choose ANY SAME VOICE on both a motif xf and a moxf.
Sweep both filters.
Check the smooth filter on xf. Check the horrible stepping filter on the moxf.

There is absolutely no excuse for that.
It’s the most horrible filter stepping i’ve ever heard on any keyboard, of any time, including budget ones, and there’s no reason for that.
I also found out it was an issue on the MOX on a Future Music magazine review, where they gave it a good review but one of the main problems was the filter stepping so horrendously bad, unlike other yamaha boards.

DNGmaestro - 24 November 2013 05:41 PM

On the moxf pick any voice, preferably one with lots of high and low end (a “fat” bass for example") , up the resonance a bit, and sweep the cutoff.

DNGmaestro - 25 November 2013 03:42 AM

Choose ANY SAME VOICE on both a motif xf and a moxf.
Sweep both filters.
Check the smooth filter on xf. Check the horrible stepping filter on the moxf.[...]

Since I don’t have a MOXF to compare with my XF, what you’re suggesting isn’t practical for me.

We already know that a MOXF isn’t the same as a Motif XF in several respects. Even if the tone generator is identical, there’s no question that the physical controllers aren’t. So if the MOXF exhibits more audible stepping than the XF when an identical Voice is chosen on each, the question is whether the MOXF control knobs are outputting fewer (coarser) steps over their range than those of the XF.

As I said previously, ”I’ve verified with my Motif XF that the the knobs output values from 00h at full CCW to 7Fh at full CW, incrementing by a value of “one” (128 discrete values).”

Would someone with a MOXF and a means to monitor its output (such as MIDI-OX) please let us know what values/increments are obtained when its knobs are swept from end to end?

I am not used to MIDI-OX output etc I only use it to connect different hardware with each other.
On another note I don`t care that if it steps as I am not an nob twister:) I set it then I play......anyway here what I got from MIDI-OX

MeMyselfAndI64 - 25 November 2013 06:11 AM

I am not used to MIDI-OX output etc I only use it to connect different hardware with each other.
On another note I don`t care that if it steps as I am not an nob twister:) I set it then I play......anyway here what I got from MIDI-OX

Thanks for the screen capture. We can determine from it that the value is incremented by one from step to step. The display begins at 1Ch(28 decimal) and ends at 59h(89 decimal), a range of 62 values. I suspect that what we’re seeing is the limitation of the screen capture, and not the minimum and maximum from MOXF knobs. If someone would just verify that the min is 00H and the max 7Fh, that would be helpful.

If anyone has access to both XF and MOXF, and can verify what DNGmaestro is hearing, I propose an experiment. Turn Local Control off on both, and connect the MIDI-Out of each synth to the MIDI-In of the other. Then play each keyboard, and see if the audibility of any stepping from each synth swaps - that is, if the MOXF output was initially worse, does the XF now exhibit more audible stepping.

On the other hand, if nobody cares, never mind.  :-)

I messed up I did not turn it down the cutoff first:)
I am not into this with all the numbers.....

Anyway if I start Cutoff (the MOFX shows -64) the first step up from there (In column “Data 2” of MIDI-OX) is 01 and the last is 7F.

Hope that was what you asked for?
I don`t care if it steps a bit as I don`t use it that way!

MeMyselfAndI64 - 25 November 2013 08:20 AM

[...]Anyway if I start Cutoff (the MOFX shows -64) the first step up from there (In column “Data 2” of MIDI-OX) is 01 and the last is 7F.[...]

Thanks for the additional information. That indicates the MOXF knobs output the same data range as from the XF - 128 values from end-to-end.

Why are you still talking about 128 midi values...? lol

It has absolutely nothing to do with it.

But using them as a an example, on the moxf it seems they “step” from 100 to 90 to 80 to 70 etc..
Instead of 100, 99, 98 , 97.

I’m guessing they used an inferior harware processor or something that can’t quite handle the sweeps of the xs or xf engines.