mySoftware [Updates]

Once you create a user profile on Motifator and update with the appropriate information, the updates shown here will be specific to you.

rssFeeds [Syndicate]


forumforum
 

Old Motifator threads are available in the Archive.

Viewing topic "Melas programs for MX"

   
Page 2 of 3
Posted on: September 12, 2013 @ 08:01 AM
KostasT
Total Posts:  90
Joined  04-06-2013
status: Experienced

I will keep this link open for a while:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o37iya7w7d3vydq/MOTIF XS Dance Xpanded.rar

You can use a HEX editor to open the library files but it is almost impossible for a human to read the contents, except some names.

Another bug in Melas tool might be that it does not load the performances from XS like for example in MOTIF XS “Oriental Instruments & Percussion” library that according to documentation it has 36 perfomances.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 14, 2013 @ 09:15 AM
KostasT
Total Posts:  90
Joined  04-06-2013
status: Experienced

I also tested motif Xs pop & rock library. The voices seem Ok BUT Melas tool didn’t load the included performances. This is a serious bug that John must investigate since the performances of this kind of libraries is all the money.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 14, 2013 @ 01:30 PM
Bad_Mister
Avatar
Total Posts:  36648
Joined  07-30-2002
status: Moderator

I’m not sure if you are expecting something that simply is not possible. So perhaps I should stop you before you manufacturer your own specifications. There is no Performance compatibility between the MX and any other product, period. Where are you getting the idea that there is? And it certainly is not due to any bug in anyone’s software.

A PERFORMANCE in the Motif XS is made from four Voices, PARTS 1-4, each can have an Insertion Effect, and an Arpeggiator. The Voices can be either normal Voices or Drum Kit Voices in any combination.

A PERFORMANCE in the MX is made from two normal Voices, PARTs 1 and 2, each can have an Insertion Effect and Arpeggio. The third PART can be a Rhythm Pattern assigned to a Drum Kit in Part 10.

The Motif XS has access to some 6633 Arpeggio Types, there are 999 in the MX.

Please don’t misinterpret what can and cannot be used. There is no compatibility between Performances, period. And it is not a bug, it is a serious miscalculation on your part, nothing more.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 14, 2013 @ 07:26 PM
castorex
Total Posts:  18
Joined  09-01-2013
status: Regular

Yes, It is exactly what i have understood.
The compatibility is only, and in a very restrictive way, on the voice parameters… knowing there is only one insert effect (and a subset of insert effects), no arpeggio on voice (only predefined on performance), and less waveforms (essentially related to complex articulations).
The importation function is a toy function and seems not very usable in practice cause of many hardware limitations of the MX.
I have tested many voices in PSC free library and the results are sometime OK… but certainly not the same as expected because the insert chain effets are very different in many voices (I have opened the library in a Yamaha XS edition tool to compare).

So I can say that we can have some good surprises using XS/MOX
library but it is more a random process.

John Melas provides a tool to create true MX libraries… perhaps some people will convert their libraries on MX or creat original ones, but I don’t think so. No entry-level product have custom libraries, even if good edition features exist… it is only for expensive and pro product…

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 15, 2013 @ 04:30 PM
Dreamchilde
Total Posts:  27
Joined  09-06-2013
status: Regular
castorex - 02 September 2013 12:54 AM

I am a beginner (in Motif and synth) and I have a question related to Melas tools:
I installed the demo version for MX and imported a free XS/MOX library containing 384 voices. But I can only view 128 voices… I suppose the 128 voices of the first bank. How can i view and work with the other two banks ?

I am also new to the MX and the Melas MX Tools. I wasn’t even able to import the .X4V from the PSC Songwriters Collection. I’m trying to do it in the Total Librarian and the Voice Editor. What am I missing?

EDIT: Disregard. Found the YouTube video tutorial for this. Sorry, rookie mistake. Please carry on.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 15, 2013 @ 09:41 PM
KostasT
Total Posts:  90
Joined  04-06-2013
status: Experienced

Excuse me, Bad_Mister, but I thought that an MX Performance can hold up to 16 parts and with Melas Performance Editor or the free VycroMX editor it is possible to create “Mega” Performances, that is Performances with any possible combination of split/layer/velocity/midi assignment (limited only by the total number of 128 notes and the other hardware limitations of 4 ins effects, 2 arps etc.). Actually, I have made myself some of these “Mega” Performances for testing purposes. So, being a software engineer myself, I can’t believe that the 4 MOTIF XS Performances cannot be transferred with some software modifications (not very complicated) to a 16 parts container (taking into account the limitations, missing parameters etc.) Again, I repeat that we don’t expect an MX to sound exactly as its big brothers. We are examining the capabilities of a software that claims to be able to transfer native MOTIF libraries. I have addressed this issue to John and I am expecting his answer.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 15, 2013 @ 10:26 PM
Bad_Mister
Avatar
Total Posts:  36648
Joined  07-30-2002
status: Moderator

Sorry but that doesn’t change the basic definitions for the two products, regardless of what you can or cannot believe… The MX Performance is quite different from the XS, that’s a fact. A “mega Performance” is not the equivalent of an XS Performance, in spite of you wanting to wish it so. So perhaps it is the fact you are a software engineer that makes you misunderstand this basic concept. But as long as you go into it with your eyes wide open you will not go around crying “bug” when it’s a design concept… And not a bug at all.

The XS does not use MIDI RECEIVE CHANNEL as a Part parameter… It does not exist
The Mega Performance has to use it to circumvent this… So. mega Performance is more akin to MIXING mode in the XS. This is not a bug, but a design concept. Accept it or continue to be frustrated.

The XS was a product that was current 2007-2010, attempting to load XS Performances into the MX is an endeavor that while it is something to do, might be time better spent making MX Performances out of the set of tools available in the MX! Looking forward, not backwards

Finding the arpeggio among the 999 in the MX is futile in and of itself, why is this something you want to do? I guess is my question.

There is no direct compatibility between these products… I guess as a software engineer it is irresistible to try to make them work.... It’s so close:-).  Have fun, let us know what you discover.  But in the meantime don’t overlook what the MX can do on its own. If you are interested in loading your XS Voices and Performances there is closer compatibility and there is direct importing with the Motif XF series (but I’m sure you know this).

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 16, 2013 @ 12:06 AM
KostasT
Total Posts:  90
Joined  04-06-2013
status: Experienced

Ok, point accepted. I could speak with more realistic arguments if I had access to the internal specs of both instruments, which I don’t. On the other hand, I have some last minute info from John Melas that I would like to share with you regarding all the issues in this topic.
1. Loading of more than 128 user voices is a bug of his software that will be corrected in next release. Meanwhile he suggested a workaround: we can use the demo version of MOX librarian in offline mode, move some voices to bank 1, save them in an .allmox file and import that to MX librarian.
2. Loading of XS Performances in MX is not supported at the moment (only loading of XS Songs and XS Mixes, as John said). But he founded it a good idea for the future, although it is more complicated than importing XS Mixes (though he didn’t find it impossible).
3. The disabled elements (not in libraries with new samples) is a normal behavior of his software because they are also disabled in the original XS voices (as he claims). His software tries to make replacements of any missing internal waveforms using a guessing algorithm.

(Eppur si muove - And yet it moves)

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 23, 2013 @ 12:08 AM
castorex
Total Posts:  18
Joined  09-01-2013
status: Regular

I have tested some other XS banks on the MX… it is true, without linked performance, all the voices are often useless (in their context, voices are good in absolute).

With the “brand new” MOXF, I am afraid that new specific banks for the MX will never appeared… in waiting for the MXF. The good news is Yamaha will have to create a real new machine in the future: everything has been done to recycle the MOTIF serie.
I think this MX is very expensive for what it is: an old ROM (finally), a false compatibility with XS/MOX/XF, many artificial limitations, a fisher-price keybed.

I will send back my MX to the shop (I have two months to change my mind) and I prefer waiting for another good keyboard (a MOXF ? but always the fisher-price feeling, a kurzweil for the keybed and the flexibility ? but needs a sound engineer diploma to understand VAST, a korg Krome for having an opportunity to drink a coffee during the booting phase ?) or continuing with VSTi.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: September 23, 2013 @ 10:48 PM
KostasT
Total Posts:  90
Joined  04-06-2013
status: Experienced

If you can afford it (1100$), go for a MOXF6. It sounds great and has all the features someone would desire. Or wait for another letter combination of Motif series from Yamaha.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: October 03, 2013 @ 10:04 AM
anotherscott
Total Posts:  649
Joined  06-30-2010
status: Guru
castorex - 23 September 2013 12:08 AM

I think this MX is very expensive for what it is

Really? What $499 keyboard sounds better than an MX49? What $699 keyboard sounds better than an MX61? I think Yamaha has been offering great value in all their recent boards… CP4, MOXF, MX.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: October 03, 2013 @ 10:46 AM
stoneb3
Total Posts:  824
Joined  06-05-2011
status: Guru

Yeah, just a bit more than a midi controller with a whole lot more to boot.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: October 03, 2013 @ 08:11 PM
castorex
Total Posts:  18
Joined  09-01-2013
status: Regular

a bit more then a midi controller… but for a 500€ midi controller I can expect a very good keybed not a plastic toy keybed from first-price psr model !
500€ for an old DSP architecture (a XS-- model with 128 voices of polyphony) with 155Mo of ROM (a ROM component of 512Mo cost nothing).
My casio PX150 has a better output level using headphone output… and a really better piano sound (comparison is not possible in fact) with a fantastic keybed… for 500€. Even a Roland Juno Di that i have tested has better piano sounds with a large choice of piano (with 64Mo of ROM samples).

But I kept my MX49 finally… for brass, strings , Epiano, guitar, synth, pad, etc sounds and because it’s a very compact keyboard and i have not enough space for another (better) model… no other 49keys polyvalent machine in fact. So on, I continue the adventure with this small machine waiting for more space in my room and for a MOXF or a MXF at 500€ (in some months).
I am happy with my configuration:
- casio px150 for piano touch and piano sound
- MX49 for all other sounds and because I can move with it everywhere
- some free Vsti

I hope I could find some new sound libraries for MX in motificator shop one day. I will buy Melas tools when corrections will be applied : bug in library importation (when more than 1 bank), and not performance importation at all (even if its possible to make some intelligent conversion for the MX).
For the moment I am learning the detailed architecture of the small MX… required step to exploit Melas voice editor.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: October 04, 2013 @ 12:35 AM
anotherscott
Total Posts:  649
Joined  06-30-2010
status: Guru
castorex - 03 October 2013 08:11 PM

a bit more then a midi controller… but for a 500€ midi controller I can expect a very good keybed not a plastic toy keybed from first-price psr model

A MIDI controller at the same price as a MX had *better* do some things better than an MX… the thing has no sounds, so there would be no reason for it to exist if it wasn’t better than the MX in some other way. Again, note what my question was, what at the price of the MX *sounds* better?

castorex - 03 October 2013 08:11 PM

500€ for an old DSP architecture (a XS-- model with 128 voices of polyphony) with 155Mo of ROM (a ROM component of 512Mo cost nothing).

Okay, then if iyou think the MX is such a bad value, what 500€ board has more than 128 voices of polyphony, or more than 155 mb ROM?

castorex - 03 October 2013 08:11 PM

(a ROM component of 512Mo cost nothing).

How much do you think it costs, and what is your source? My understanding is that custom ROM is pretty expensive.

(As an aside, boards with more ROM don’t always actually sound better. I thought the 64 mb Kurzweil PC3 series sounded much better than the 256 mb Korg M3. An example of “it’s not what you have, it’s what you do with it.")

castorex - 03 October 2013 08:11 PM

My casio PX150 has a better output level using headphone output… .

You’re kidding… An MX is a bad value because another board has a hotter headphone output?

castorex - 03 October 2013 08:11 PM

My casio PX150 has...a really better piano sound (comparison is not possible in fact)

I really like Casio, I think they are unfairly put down by a lot of people, I think they have made some very nice stuff. But honestly, I think the PX150 piano sound is plunky, I’d take the Yamaha piano. But that’s subjective.

castorex - 03 October 2013 08:11 PM

My casio PX150 has...a fantastic keybed.

Finally something I can agree with you about! You might want to try this experiment since you own both: Use your nice PX150 keybed to trigger the Yamaha MX’ piano sound. When played from a piano-apporpriate keyboard, you might be surprised how much better the Yamaha piano sounds to you.

Of course, the Casio and the MX don’t compete in the same market action-wise… one is a weighted action, much better for playing piano, and the other is an unweighted action, much better for playing organ or synth. So you can’t really say the Casio gives you a “better” keyboard in this case… if you’re playing organ, no, it gives you a worse keyboard.

But really, of course you can find another board at the MX price with this feature or that, but then it won’t have something else that the MX has. You like the PX-150? Great. It gives you a wonderful weighted action, a piano sound you like, and built in speakers. OTOH it gives you only 18 sounds, nothing like the range of quality sounds in the Yamaha. No mod wheel or knobs for altering the sounds, minimal effects, minimal split (only one sound available on bottom, if I recall)… Or you find a 500€ controller you love the feel of? Great, but it doesn’t have all the other stuff in the MX. The point is that there are lots of things that numerous 500€ boards have, but you can’t put ALL of them into the same 500€ board, or else you don’t have a 500€ board anymore. For the sound and features in an MX, I think it’s a great value.

  [ Ignore ]  

Posted on: October 10, 2013 @ 01:44 AM
castorex
Total Posts:  18
Joined  09-01-2013
status: Regular

Ok ok… I am agree with you.
But it is not so expensive to put 355Mo of waveform instead of 155Mo to have a full compatibility with XS (on this point)… except if the waveforms are stored in the same flash component as OS/arpegio&drums;pattern/user voices&performances;… I don’t want to open my MX49 to see the mainboard !
But this is not very important. I am sure that all of these are only marketing things.

And I found the most important problem with Melas tool: hardware synth has to be connected to view data. Impossible to open an XS bank and to look for performance setup without XS/MOX connected. It would be very convenient to prepare some performance setups (in bed) with no connection to the synth, and it would allow to view MOX/XS/XF bank setup for manual MX conversion (when possible).

Is someone has a link or a document that describes the format of a X0A file ? I need this one to extract performance data, display them, and use them to rebuild some performances for the MX (for XS banks when performances are very useful).
The midi file bulk description from the XS datalist pdf file show me some differences with the X0A content (I can identify performance zone but it does not match exaclty with the datalist pdf description of bulk data).

  [ Ignore ]  


Page 2 of 3


     


Previous Topic:

‹‹ illegal format
Next Topic:

    SF1 - SF6 buttons with Melas tools ››