I think the FantomG's ARX expansion brass board has the ability to do a 'divisi' of parts. What this means for those that don't know, is that voices (often different voices) can be stacked up on one note, but if you play two or three notes, they 'split out' rather than the second note ALSO having two or three sounds on it.

Think of it like a trombone, an alto and a trumpet playing unison. Then they play a chord. Six other players don't join them! Each of them takes ONE note in the chord.

I think this would be an amazing new feature for arrangers to add, particularly as focused as many of us are on older music like jazz, bigband, old school R&B, etc..

Not to mention, the same technique is also applicable to woodwinds, sax sections, strings, just about any ensemble in the acoustic realm. Plus, as a bonus, imagine synth lead or pad sounds that are stacked, but split out when chords are played. In synth terms, this is very handy for creating more complex sounds, and it has the benefit of the VOLUME of a part or track remaining more consistent despite you changing the number of notes played.

It used to be a feature on many of the old school analog synths, at least with the same sound, and with Oberheim's and some other with different sounds, and is also in many of the newer VSTi synths too.

If we are trying to think of ways that arrangers could be made more realistic, here's the perfect thing... and Roland have already got a board that can do it. I see no reason why software alone couldn't add this to just about any arranger out there. It's just a question of tinkering with the voice allocation routines, really.

What do you think?

Yep the PA can already do that Diki...Done in the Sound Edit area where the user can specify how many voices (or in "Korg speak" oscillators) one can use for an individual sound.

You can have from one to 16 voices assigned to one instrument, which I think reading your post is what you are after. Each voice or oscillator sample can be sourced from anywhere, can be pitched wherever, can be poly or mono can have different adsr rates, and it goes on...

Of course if I am misunderstanding your meaning on this, feel free to correct

VERY comprehensive. If you have not had a look already, have a read of the PA3 Advanced Edit Manual....

Dennis

Exactly Dennis.....

Dennis......what page is that on (in the Advanced Edit Manual)?

Sound editing, or more correctly Sound Operating Mode..

Have some brain food before you start It is a heavy duty manual!! And it is not a page, but a chapter!!

I don't think it can, Dennis. I have got all the manuals, and have read them (I know... but someone has to do it!) and what we are talking about here is more like the old 'unison' mode from the old Jupiters, and the like.

If you hold down ONE note, all the oscillators sound (fat!). If you hold down two notes, half the oscillators go to the high note, and half to the low note. Hold down three, it gets split to three, four to four, etc..

About the only way this seems even slightly possible is to have each voice as a monophonic sound, and have High note and Low note Priority to them. But this only seems to work for TWO sounds. Play anything more than two notes and no further split can happen. Not to mention, as a monophonic sound, should you lift one finger and leave the other sounding, the note 'lifted' will jump to the note still held.

It's a far more complicated thing than it sounds, Dennis. It really IS more to do with the voice allocation routines than it is to the voice programming.

Hi Diki

You would need to develop a suitable algorithm to do what you require, however once worked out there is no reason why it could not be incorporated on any arranger.

The only problem I foresee is that do current arrangers have enough processing power to perform it while still doing all the other things. (The Roland has to use a separate hardware card)

In addition is there enough demand for it so as to get the R & D departments to develop it. (And don’t forget convincing the accountants who do their best to stifle all types of innovation)

Bill

Diki, just as a point of interest. The ARX03 Supernatural Brass is integrated into the VP770. It really is a blast to play. It has two modes, 'stack' and 'unison' which responds differently to single and multiple notes being played (see manual) but both are a blast to play and can produce some very interesting effects. It may also be one of the reasons that it's so overpriced .

chas

So Diki are you are saying the PA is like the old jupiters unison mode???? if so, you are way off the mark!!! and again if so, I don't think you really understand the power of the sound programming on the Korgs!!

For a start, voice allocation priority (which is what it seems you are talking about in this second post) is on ALL synthsizers, no matter make model or cost. Even the G and this add on card you are talking about...there are just so many DCO's that can be physically built into the PCB's on these things...

The Korg has 16 independently programmable oscillators for each single sound patch...as I said, each oscillator can have it's own dedicated adsr parameters, triggering parameters, velocity parameters and so on..which is rather more than just the old "unison mode" doncha think?

D

Been watching the demos of the ARX Brass board on the Roland site here (The NAMM video shows it the best)and as Dennis says any modern board out there can assign voices as shown in the Video, however most hardware arrangers do not have the processing power to do it at the same time as using all the other features, in addition there is always the possibility of running out of Polyphony as each layer (Oscillator) requires its own polyphony.

It’s a matter of suck it and see really

Bill

I love to play brass too.
And I thought about this feature long ago, and wanted to add it on vArranger. The only problem with that feature is that you need to add some LATENCY. Because the player can't play 2 notes or 3 or 4 exactly together.

So it need to add a rule.

When it get the first note, it wait for some milliseconds, to see if new notes is coming together.

If no, it plays every channels (trombone, trumpet, sax, brass)

If yes, then it then assign every note, to an instrument.

So, how much latency you want to add to your playing?

Ketron keyboards have a function called DUET, TRIO who allow that too, but it's not perfect.

I will give my take on it.

One of the earliest Oberheim analog synths, the Oberheim 4-Voice, was essentially four monophonic synths slung in a case and wired up together...without lingering on this drastic oversimplification, what you were presented with was a number of SEM's, or Synthesizer Expander Modules, each one a self-contained monophonic synth.

Each of the four notes then played on the keyboard, harnessed one SEM apiece. (there were also 2-Voice and 8-Voice versions).

In order to give a homogeneous polyphonic sound, the SEM's had to be individually programed to the same sound, and this combination was stored in a programmer that had 16 locations.

If you had different sounds in each SEM, you could assign the instrument to move sequentially through the SEM's in turn, or remain "frozen" on one, or remain on one for the first note played, and then step through the other three....you could also split the keyboard.

Depending on what you were looking for, the tuning discrepancies of early analog could either be a boon or a bust, and I remember the sound was very spacious, especially so since each SEM could be placed in it's own position in the stereo field.

I'm not sure if the type of keyboard scanning was involved in how each was accessed sequentially, but I do remember the one a friend of mine had (a 4-Voice) where the first note played activated SEM-1, and subsequent notes sounded SEM-2, 3, and 4 in that order...at least that's how I remember the way the voices (or SEM's) were allocated.

In that way, with different sounds programmed on each SEM, you could stack or diversify sounds depending on how you played, as in how you suggested..."trombone, an alto and a trumpet playing unison. Then they play a chord. Six other players don't join them! Each of them takes ONE note in the chord."

There is a VST that replicates the Oberheim synth's "diversi" here in the OP-X PRO-II version : http://www.sonicprojects.ch/obx/comparisontable.html

I am not aware of any present day hardware arrangers/workstations that do this, but maybe there is.

One thing for sure...it would be a very cool idea to implement.

Ian

Yep that is pretty much what the Korg sound editing gives you , except way WAY more advanced...

So, if you play a 3 or 4 note chord, each individual note will be a completely different sound? What is the limit?

Don't think I can do this on the Tyros4.

Ian

Ian, each oscillator can have a totally different sample and totally individual ADSR, velocity and modulation source parameters to name few (not necessary to name them all here), but I think that gives you the idea..

Polyphony, as is the case as you know with ANY synth is limited to the overall poly limits on any synth, on the PA it is limited to 120. On the Motif it is 128, same as the Tyros, and all have excellent voice allocation algorithms..

But the HUGE advantage the Roland cards have, is that they actually GIVE more polyphony as they have their own dedicated dco's.

Dennis

I understand that each oscillator can have a different sample...what I am asking, is that if you play a chord (C root, for example C-E-G),in your right hand with three different sounds assigned to the right side, let's say Trombone, Trumpet and Saxophone...can you have Trombone on C, Trumpet on E, and Saxophone on G...all sounding individually as if it were three seperate players, each playing a note in the chord?

I know you can stack them, but what about as described above?

Ian

Ian, go to Roland support and check page 90 of the owners manual for the VP770. Look at both 'Stack' and 'Unison' mode. This will give you a precise explanation of how it works with the Roland implementation.

chas

Got it...thanks Chas...that appears to work much like the Oberheim 4-Voice, but, of course, far more advanced.

Cool. Do Roland Arrangers work the same, I wonder?

Ian

Hi Ian

View the NAMM video at the Roland link I posted and it will become as clear as a bell.

Regards

Bill

Thanks Bill...the bell has rung clearly.

I wonder if Korg's PA operates in much the same manner, as I think this type of voice assignment (divisi) is what Diki referred to in his original post.

Ian

I still don't think you are getting it, Dennis. I honestly have looked at the Korg's manual VERY carefully. There are NO routines in it whatsoever to do what I am talking about.

I'll try one more time. You play ONE note, and a bari, a t'bone, an alto and a trumpet all play in unison. You play a four note chord, and the bari plays the bottom note, the T'bone the next up, the alto the next up and the trumpet plays the top note. Play two notes and the t'bone and bari play the bottom one, the alto and the trumpet the top one. Go back to playing one note, and they all go back to unison.

I cannot find any way to make a Korg do that. If you can, spell it out for me, please.

The reason the ARX boards are so expensive is that they are actually separate synths in their own right. They don't use the polyphony of the host keyboard, they add to it.

But I still believe that this feature could be added to arrangers (and other synths) without great cost. As I said, this is more a function of the voice allocation routines (not in the oscillator sense, Dennis, but in the part of the keyboard that assigns whole sounds to the keys) more than anything else.

Roland have not yet brought out a TOTL arranger with the ARX slots, so this is FantomG only so far (or maybe the Digital Piano's too), and it doesn't seem likely that Roland have much interest in the TOTL market at the current time.

Voice allocation is a very powerful tool, which I think at the moment, no keyboard really gives you good control over. Take Hammond Perc for instance. Polyphonic, but with a single trigger. In other words, play a chord and all the notes sound. But HOLD that chord, and no further voices sound. Most synths do a naff workaround to get this allocation method, and only the dedicated Hammond clones got it right. Lately, it has started to appear in more arrangers, but usually, it still only applies to the Hammond Perc, despite it being useful for attack transients for woodwinds, brass, even synth sounds.

But these divisi allocations have been largely ignored so far. Some of the better softsynths, and orchestral libraries have routines for them (which tends to bolster my theory that it isn't that complicated to implement) so for instance, you play the 1st violins part and they are all unison, but if you play two notes or more, they play new samples of half (or third etc.) of the players playing. Just like what happens in real life!

Anyway, Dennis, if you can program a PA3 to do this, send me the program and I'll load it up into my friend's PA3 and see what it does. But I think you have your work cut out. There are certainly NO factory programs which do this, and you would think that, if it could, some smart boy at Korg would have done it!

I finally had a chance to watch the NAMM video that Bill suggested..

After your last post Diki, I realised I HAD totally misunderstood what this was actually about my bad...apologies to Ian also as I think I misunderstood his query as well...

That is pretty damn impressive!! And no there is NO way that I know of, that any Korg can do that, certainly not the PA...

Would be a superb tool to actually get accurate brass parts...

I do agree with you that I cannot see a reason why this could not be implemented in some way via software...as long as the user realises this sort of heavy duty sound manipulation is going to make big dents in the total poly..

You may have missed it in my last post, but I DID specifically comment (and gave kudos as well) on the fact that ARX boards add poly to the keyboard

So, upshot I also think this is brilliant, and no, with the current software the PA certainly can not achieve anything like this ...maybe a "fudge" using two instruments but not five (or was it six?) in the NAMM vid...

Dennis

How DVZ (Divisi) works
Real time divisi processing
http://www.audioimpressions.com/how-it-works/how-dvz-works/dvz-explained

Okay, as this was outside my area of expertise in sound programming on the Korg, I asked my m8,one of the acknowledged "gurus" of Korg sound programming, Sharp, over at Korg Forums...I gave him a reference to that NAMM demo, and asked if he knew if this was possible on the PA3....here is his reply.....

Hi Dennis.
The KRONOS, OASYS and Pa3X can easily do this.

DNC inside the Px3X can really make easy work of this too. Everything he spoke about on tuning per layer, splits and even his use of switches and controllers has existed in all KORG keyboards for a very long time.

He's using a sound he created that is split and mapped out. On the Pa3X you can copy the OSC's of any existing sound into your new sound and start building up your layers, splits, tuning, DNC and controllers / switches with no problems at all all from a single program.

Cheers
James

I did also ask if he could pop in here and maybe write a few lines, but he is really SUPER busy so he may not have time...So it seems it is possible after all..

I know on the PA3x, you can assign separate parts as mono sounds, and that would do what you asked. There is a factory patch that features a 3 layered brass section, but the trumpet is in mono, so that note jumps all over the chord .... you can't control which note it will take, but I suppose it is based on priority - maybe first, or last not played? So - set up a 3 tone section and make each tone a mono sample - a single note will play them all in unison, but a 3 note chord will assign a tone to each of the chord notes. You would give up the ability to play more than 3 notes in the right hand, though.
Not sure I like that idea.
The factory patch with the mono trumpet is kinda cool, but it limits some of my creative energy - too much randomness for my taste.

Why not just modify the part to be poly? Easy enough to do in the menu section...unless it would not work for you having it poly...

Well, it took Dennis about three goes before he understood this wasn't possible, maybe James is not quite onboard with the concept yet, but I'll be happy to be shown how it can be done.

Mind you, as amazingly useful as this is, you would have thought that someone at Korg would have come up with some factory patches that show this concept off. I can think of a myriad musical uses for such a capability...

Diki, no offence m8, but do you actually read ALL of the posts? Or do you just skim to find salient bits?

Did you not read that I said (and pasted the comment) that James has already replied to me personally to say the PA3 can do this....and he DID watch the video very carefully!!

Oh and btw I reckon it was only twice m8 not three times

D

I say what one player thinks is a great features aren't so for the next one....everyone plays different.....

Hard to disagree with that. Different strokes.........

chas

Exactly Chas....it's when people try to impose their beliefs on others that the friction starts... to me a Kb or any gear I buy is merely just a business investment which seeks a profitable return...

I did read it, Dennis. But, as I pointed out, this is a MUCH thornier problem than it appears at first (it took you a while to grok the implications), James may have missed some of the implications, and again, as useful as this seems to be, why no programmer yet has actually done it tends to let me remain a hair skeptical.

I am not sure why this skepticism is so upsetting. Just SAYING it can be done without example isn't exactly proving it. I realize you perhaps feel 'invested' in your choice of equipment, and may perhaps feel uncomfortable admitting that there MIGHT be something it can't do (mind you, as admitted, no other arranger or any hardware keyboard with the exception of that expansion board can do it either, so I'm not trying to put YOUR choice down), but my goal is not to denigrate ANYTHING, merely to suggest that this capability MIGHT be useful, and perhaps spark a little interest (by all other than Donny, who never heard of anything he doesn't currently have that he might possibly use!) in the idea of it!

Horn section parts are one of the least successfully emulated sounds, primarily because of the 'stacked' nature of them. The sample itself is either unison or octave playing of an entire section, so unless you only ever play ONE note, you get that issue of the ensemble doubling or tripling in size as you chord, and you ALSO have the issue of it only being accurate in a tiny section of the keyboard, because a real section would have some of the parts within it dropping down or up an octave as it gets higher or lower.

You see, unlike SOME here, to me a keyboard is a MUSICAL instrument, not an 'investment' for a 'profitable return'. But hey, if that's all anyone thinks about the thing they pour their heart and soul into (or not!), perhaps staying out of discussions where musical improvements are talked about, and stick to discussions of paid gigs, booking strategies, and contract disputes might be better!

If this ever gets added to an arranger you end up using, and you actually LIKE the sound, you can thank me later!

Hi guys.
Dennis asked me to swing by after watching that video. It's a great demo, but this is very typical of a KORG Workstation. COMBI mode on a KRONOS for example has 16 Prog sounds. Each prog sound has two OSC's and each of those OSC's can have 8 layers of multisamples you can assign mono and stereo multisamples to.

That's 2 parts times 16 layers = 1 Sound, times 16 sounds = one COMBI. That's well over 500 multisamples can be in a single COMBI sound.

For each stage of all this you have a massive array of settings, midi controls, cc filters, tuning, velocity zones, karma, 16 on/off switches, assignable sliders, assignable switches and way too many other things to mention that call all be tied into your sounds to reproduce and greatly surpass how the guy playing the Roland was able to have so many different sounds without changing actual sounds.

All this can be used to trigger and control pretty much everything. Play one area, you have a set of sounds, play the same area harder, you get a different set of sounds, play an octave higher you have a different set of sounds. Use a Switch, Controller, Slider,... you get more and more.

So in all fairness, what the Roland is doing is pretty basic compared to what a KRONOS can do.

On the Pa3X things are slightly different. There is no COMBI sound, but a single Prog sound has a whopping 24 OSC's. Each OSC can be assigned to a mono sample, and since each OSC is a full part, it has full and totally independent access to the entire sound engine, all 24 OSC's.

So from a single sound you can assemble 24 sounds / layers and kick in and out as required by any of the controllers or defining parameters you set. Each OSC can be controlled in countless ways, split, tuned and switched. Not to mention DNC Technology.


A key part in the roland demo... On a the Pa3X you can play a chord and hear one layer of the sound play all those notes your holding down, and second layer play a single note. This is dead simple to do by using the mono and poly options within a single sound and their additional settings. Remember, the OSC's are all independent of each other so mono and poly layers can exist within the same sound.

Mono Poly - Priority Mode (Last note, Lowest note, Highest Note) allows you to tell the Pa3X thatn when your playing a chord, the Poly sound plays everything your playing, but the mono layer will shift to the lowest, remain on the last, or go to the highest note. Then you have Note on control, note off control, Ploy Legato, Single Trigger, Unison mode, Layer Priority ....and so on...

Throw DNC into the pot and you have countless ways of making those interact with what you play differently and totally independent of each other.

Here's some DNC Technology for controlling and triggering layers within a singe sound.
Normal, when you play Legato, when you play Staccato, Sound Controller 1 and 2, Joy Stick, Cycle 1 and 2, Random, After Touch, Y+/- Triggering, Legato Up, Legato down.

Then there's RX....

and so on....

So I hope people can see how flexible the KORG way is. And that's without even talking about the EDS Sound engine and HD-1 as a programmable engine to shape your sound.

Not to mention the fact that a KRONOS has 9 Sound Engines.

Regards
James

James thankyou for the clear explanation.... Although I think we all have more then enough fluff on today's arranger kb, mostly never utilized....personally I DON'T REALLY THINK WE NEED MUCH MORE

i had the Technics KN1000 keyboard soem 20 years ago and it had this feature on some of its brass sounds where you had three sounds layered , typically trombone,trumpet and sax where if you played a single note you heard all three play in unison but if you played a triad say CEG the trombone would take the C trumpet E and Sax G.

This is old technology and not new.

It is not scepticism on my part Diki, far from it - do try to keep up

I WROTE I thought it a briliant idea, and now James has provided an insight into how it can be achieved on the PA, no dramas there either...although, it is going to be a huge learner for me (my synth programming began and ended with the Roland JX3P)....but I will have a go as to reiterate, I DO think it is good to give realistic horn sections, for the VERY rare times I ever use them...

And you should know me better than to think I am at all interested in the .."just because I bought it I have to defend it" crap!!!

As for the other part (re: You see, unlike SOME here, to me a keyboard is a MUSICAL instrument,) I am in TOTAL agreement....the day I start looking at my instrument as an investment is the day I stop playing, period!!!

Dennis

Performing is a job......Instruments are the tool...these tools are used to earn a living...plain and simple...when a better tool comes along that can earn you more make the change for the better....if not stay with what you have...$$$ will always be the bottom line.....enjoying your job is a benifit...

Sorry Donny, I really disagree with this...my instrument is not a tool, it is part of me..That it can help with earning some $'s is a bonus, not the reason for either owning it or playing it.....

Of course what you wrote is your view and that's fine, I respect that, and I am not saying your are correct or wrong. My view expressed above is simply that

And in line with what I wrote previously, the day it becomes a "job" is the day I stop playing altogether..

D

I take my tools to work and enjoy my job givenng 100% what is part of me is what comes out to my audience's night after night to survive......enjoy what you play...as far as divisi prob would never have a need for it just like the CS.....have fun.

James has shown only how to split a Part into TWO notes. If you have say four different patches, layered up. A bari a t'bone, an alto and a trumpet.

Mono Poly - Priority Mode (Last note, Lowest note, Highest Note) only allows the Korg to split a chord played into the upper note and the lower note. Play a four note chord, and everything will go to the upper or the lower note of the chord, and ignore the notes in the middle.

Look, I'm not putting Korg's down. I've posted many times about how much I like the Kronos, and there's much I admire about the PA3X (finally! someone gets how good a Chord Sequencer is! Good job it's not on Donny's Korg, or he would have to start defending it!), and I still regularly use my Triton, and of course, I am completely aware about how more comprehensive voice editing is on these than any other arranger.

But.... despite James' post, he has failed to show how TRUE 'divisi' operation can be achieved. Merely splitting any chord played into its upper and lowest notes doesn't cut it.

Look, I used to have an Oberhein XPander. It was about the last thing I ever had that could assign voices in this manner. But the section that enabled the divisi, rotational triggering and other modes came at the Master level, not as programmed into each independent voice patch. As Ian said, with the SEM modules, you program the sounds at one level, then the voice allocation routines were programmed in a different section.

Voice allocation is a LOT different to oscillator allocation. While several modern synths allow you to do some fairly fancy tricks with the oscillator allocation WITHIN a patch (but not this trick, AFAIK), nothing that I currently know allows you to customize the final, overall voice allocation. The example that Roland offer with the ARX is quite simple really. Up to six voices, each different, triggered as each note is played either sequentially or simultaneously, with an allocation that plays them in order of height in the stack.

Personally, I think there are other allocation systems that could be useful. For instance, if the interval between top and bottom note gets over a specified interval, perhaps triggering the low note (the bari) and the high note (the trumpet) might be handy. And so on and so forth. A three note chord might be asked to do voices !&2, 3&4 and 5&6, for instance.

But behavior like this cannot be programmed in at the individual patch level of anything that I have read about (and trust me, I'm a manual junkie!), I only wish it was. Even my K2500, perhaps one of the most comprehensively programmed voice and Combi selections, you can't do this.

For James to suggest that splits and layers can achieve this only suggests that he simply has not grokked the basic thing that is going on here. The voice allocation from the Roland ARX board has NOTHING to do with WHERE on the keyboard the notes are triggered. Any WS has been able to split the keyboard up into a myriad of zones. But that sound ONLY plays in that zone. The ARX allocation makes no demands on WHERE you play the chord. Play four notes in tight, and you get bari/bone/sax/tpt. Play then WIDE apart, you STILL get bar/bone/sax/tpt. Totally independent of position.

Look, I'm not sure why feathers here are getting so ruffled. No keyboard, no matter HOW much you love it, can do everything. Here is something that, to be honest, has disappeared from synth for DECADES, that I believe could significantly improve the playing of certain types of parts, and rather than a reasoned discussion about it, we have someone that is determined to insist that it CAN be done, despite it NOT having been done (despite its usefulness) and so far, no example and nothing written that demonstrates it CAN. James' explanation only further illustrates that the basic concept of this is a bit alien to understand. Positional splits and velocity splits are so far away from this concept, why they are brought up eludes me.

James is an excellent programmer, I am in no way trying to put him down. But, as Dennis initially did, I simply think he hasn't quite understood the subtleties of what is involved here. This truly IS in the voice allocation routines of the synth, not in the oscillator routines. Or, at least, the allocation routines offered by current Korg's (or anything else for that matter other than the ARX board and some VSTi) are not adequate for the task.

I simply hope we can get past this, and simply discuss the CONCEPT and possible uses for it, rather than get defensive when what we use can't do it. After all, like I said, NOTHING that I have can do it! I am not trying to turn this into a 'mine is better than yours', which I am starting to get the impression that it is heading down that road. This is a 'mine is no better than anybody's' thread!

Peace.

Oh, and by the way, Donny.

I am pretty sure we could discuss alternate trigger modes, conditional note triggering, switchable oscillators all night long, and you would blithely pooh-pooh it, and claim that it has NO relevance to your bottom line.

On the other hand... didn't you, until just recently, absolutely adore the S910? Weren't you quite lavish in your praise of those SA voices?

Well, I've got really bad news for you. Those ARE conditional note triggering, alternate trigger mode using, oscillator switching patches! Seems that, perhaps, you DID have a use for all this technical mumbo jumbo it seems obvious you don't understand after all.

As I suggested, how about sticking to threads about money, as it seems obvious you don't really understand what is being discussed here...?

Diki......lol...my talent makes the music no matter what tools I use....I've always said I am not devoted to any brand......just what works and suits my need at the time.....if something new arouses my fancy I will get it.....divisi is Not or CS isn't one of those things.....Sa voices are kool but the other bad navigational features finally made me switch for now anyways.....no big deal.

HI Spalding

The technology you mention stems from the 70s, and has been advanced over the years to make it more realistic with more type of instruments, (It originally only really worked with organ voices) the first to user it was Lowry Organs and they called it AOC (Automatic Organ Computer) to which they held the patent.

Over the years manufactures have advanced it to include exactly what you describe, (Hence the multiple settings in the Auto chording feature) however it has nothing in common with the active real time multi split/layer system used in the Roland AXR card or VSTi (The auto chording feature is fixed) which have algorithms to achieve a far more realistic sound.

If you look at the DVR VSTi that is mentioned in one of the posts you will also see why a hardware arranger has no chance of being able to perform the operation without additional hardware. (Look at the computer specs required just to play the sounds in DVR)

Bill

SA voices are 'kool' (sic), and so would also be divisi voices and stack modes. Just as you probably had no IDEA that conditional voices and sample switching were useful BEFORE Yamaha came out with it, and lo and behold! Suddenly it is 'kool'...

And trust me, a mode like this that automatically made what you normally play and turned it into more accurate, better sounding brass voicings (or string voicing, woodwinds, you name it) is EXACTLY like SA voices, which takes what you normally play, and makes it SOUND better.

Why not put something down AFTER you have heard, tried and used it..? Honestly, I don't think I ever met a 'musician' so determined to deride any possible improvement to his 'tool', despite the evidence that pretty much all other improvements are being used happily..!

You know, I bet we could go back fifteen years (were you using arrangers back then?), use the SZ search, and find you putting down pretty much every newer feature you happily use today. Or were you more open to improvement back then, and it is only recently that your mind has calcified?

Let's see what has happened since then...

Four Variation, six fill arrangers (who could possibly need that many?)
Break/Fills (the stop button works just fine for MY bottom line)
Songbooks (why would I need this when I select everything from the front panel on the fly?)
Multi-pads (this wouldn't help me make any more money)
Harmonizers (what would I use a fake harmony for?)
User programmable OTS settings (the factory ones are just fine)
MP3 players (what's an MP3?)
Lyrics displays (who needs that?)

Come on Donny! Hasn't it occurred to you that you are HAPPILY using new technology every day?

It simply seems you are unable to make the jump from realizing that older 'new' technology is today's commonplace feature, and that today's 'new' technology will be tomorrow's commonplace feature, that you can't imagine doing without.

And didn't you use the S910 happily for what, three YEARS or so, before the need for a better Songbook feature made you need to change? And you had had a PA800 for a while before that, so it's not like you weren't aware of its existence. That's hardly a pressing need if you could happily gig for that length of time (and post incessantly about how great it was) knowing that a better alternative existed.

I remember the last odyssey through almost every arranger available you made, each one in turn the bee's knees, each one dropped after a few months, as you tried something else. Your posts about transferring Songbooks from PA500 to PA800/PA3, your continued interest in BK-5's seems to indicate that you aren't exactly happy with the PA500 (once you hit on the S910, your posts about moving to something different basically stopped dead).

So perhaps it might be best to drop pronouncing how perfect your current arranger is, and how no other arranger feature could be of any possible use, until you have settled down once again. Or you might be faced with the embarrassment of finding yourself back on an arranger that you currently put down!

My prediction is that you will be on the next PSR as soon as it ships.

Diki, how about sticking to posting about technology and making music because it seems obvious you don't really understand how to engage in civil discussion. This is the second posting of yours that I have read tonight that shows a complete inability to post civily. While you always seem well versed in issues related to music and technology your ability to engage in constructive discussion is totally dismal. Strike 2 !!

Simply because that's the example I gave in this instance.

I covered quite a lot on my post because Dennis asked me to comment on the Roland video from a KORG users point of view. If you want to complicate things, that's no problem at all. I did explain the Pa3X has 24 OSC's which were all independent. So lets go for another example using a crazy 24 Layers.

Set OSC 1, 2, 3 and 4 to work between C3 to C4 at a velocity of 0 to 64. Set OSC 1 to Poly, OSC 2, to Mono Lower, OSC 3 to Mono Last, OSC 4 to Mono Upper.

Now play a chord.

Repeat all the above for OSC's 5, 6, 7 and 8 using different sounds, and assign them to a velocity of 65 to 127.

Now repeat both examples above with different sounds and assign them to C4 to C5 and so on until all 24 OSC's are being used.

Now go back over everything and assign RX and DNC. You now have the mother monster patch of all time. However..... lets keep going. How about some complex EDS sound engine programming with detail LFO Modulation that is controlled by velocity, after touch or even controllers.

Sky is the limit, but for the purpose of my original post. This simply over complicates everything to a point where there is no point in me having explained all this in the first place.

Sometimes saying too much is counter productive.

Regards
James

Thanks heaps James for the original post, and now this follow up one.

I was a bit annoyed at Diki, for dismissing both your reply, and your knowledge on these things. You do NOT get to be a Korg Factory Sound programmer for nothing hey !!

Rather than dismissing it, I think Diki should have realised it WAS a simple and quick explanation to say it can be done, without over-complicating it...if he had given you the respect you deserved, he would have asked you to expand on the answer, rather than try to make a "see, I told you so" type of response.

Thanks for your more detailed description, and I will have a go at that myself. Not necessarily for these big brass sections....you already know I dislike anything but the bare minimum in styles - no, I can imagine some other rather interesting sonic possibilities from this last post of yours

Cheers m8,
Dennis

Why I am singled out for incivility, when Donny REPEATEDLY posts he has absolutely no regard for anyone's opinions beats me. Civility is either enforced evenly on this forum, or it isn't.

And sorry James... yes, the Korg system has monster capabilities. BUT IT CAN'T DO THIS.

Setting a positional oscillator continues to ignore the fact that what I am talking about is COMPLETELY independent of key position AND velocity.

The Korg has amazing capabilities. But you are essentially going 'Don't look over there, look over here'. The examples you post do NOT achieve what the ARX system does. What they DO achieve is great... but it ain't this.

Look... one more go. Six separate sounds. Six notes. Play them ANYWHERE on the keyboard. Not over the C4 boundary (or anywhere else). Not at a specific velocity. ANYWHERE. ANY STRENGTH.

The bottom note will be a bari. The NEXT note up (anywhere) will be a 'bone. The NEXT note higher will be a tenor. The NEXT note higher will be an alto. The NEXT note higher will be an trumpet. and the TOP note will also be a trumpet. Regardless of WHERE you play them, regardless of how HARD you play them...

I am sorry that this so irks everyone. But James' posts have BOTH been long enough to actually detail HOW this can be done on a Korg. But instead, he has spent all that time talking about anything BUT this particular issue. If it can be done (no factory patch does it) why not spend all that time telling us HOW?

BTW, one of my closest friends has a PA3x. We would BOTH be fascinated with a solution to this issue. If it CAN be done on a Korg, trust me, those of us into R&B, jazz and bigband music would LOVE some patches that do this.

Hi Diki.
It just works differently on the Pa3X than the Roland.

Regards
James

I don't think anyone here understands Diki...as i know of none of these machines can do
true Divisi, forget about programming PA3X or whatever. He is talking about true Divisi,
i experience that problem everyday with Strings especially. You have a 20 piece Strings
Orchestra and you play 1 Note and you get 20 Players...what happens when you actually
hit a Chord with 3-4 Notes? It goes up to 80 Violin players...some of the new Kontakt
Libraries are already Scripted for that but i highly Doubt Kronos or PA3X can do that.
I understand both engines very good, PA3X can achieve veru little of it with a LOT of
programming while Kronos no matter how many OSCs in Combi there is no way to do that.
I don't think there is anyways of programming the PA3X to do this...even if it is possible
it would be a task bigger then actually creating a whole new Style from Scratch.
If something is Programmable it doesn't mean that the synth HAS IT...i can do many things
with Kronos that even the engineers that made it wont know about but that will take me days
of thinking and programming...which also falls down to, no it cant do it.

Hi Nedim.
I will send you a pcg file for your Kronos at some point over the weekend so you can see how it works. I think you will find it very interesting as nobody really makes sounds using his method even though it's so interesting.

I suspect this will make a great programming thread on KF for the Kronos users too. Maybe even the pa3x users.

Regards
James.

Here you go.
Played from a single COMBI on the KRONOS.

Mp3 file, KRONOS PCG file. No buttons are being pressed to activate anything. This is all done live by just playing the keys.

0 to 5 seconds
4 Brass sounds playing the exact same notes.

5 to 22 seconds
Strings play different notes from the 4 brass sounds.

22 to 37 second.
I play a chord, the 4 brass sounds spread out and don't play the same notes. Then towards the end while holding a chord, one single brass sound plays different notes while everything else is holding.

37 to 41 seconds
The lower notes of a single chord are playing using different sounds than the melody I'm playing on the upper notes with the same hand.

41 to 47 seconds
Single notes are played and the brass sounds are back together. No strings.

48 to 51 seconds.
A chord is played upwards. When the first note is played, all 4 brass sounds play this note. When the second note is played, two brass sounds play only the first note, and 2 play the second note. When the third note is played, sounds one and two play the first note, sound 3 plays the second and thrid note, sound 4 only plays the last note.

51 to 56.
Now all the notes sound in reverse to what happened in 48 to 51 above.

56 to end, strings play a chord separate to everything, and all 4 brass sounds are back again playing the same notes.

This is just one simple example. I don't want to overcomplicate this by using DNC and a Pa3X.

Regards
James

After hearing the posted examples, although they are rather nicely done, until I hear an example as suggested by Diki, I will agree with Nedim's quote above (the italics are mine).

If someone with a PA3 can post an example of what Diki asked in an earlier post, which is,

" Six separate sounds. Six notes. Play them ANYWHERE on the keyboard. Not over the C4 boundary (or anywhere else). Not at a specific velocity. ANYWHERE. ANY STRENGTH.

The bottom note will be a bari. The NEXT note up (anywhere) will be a 'bone. The NEXT note higher will be a tenor. The NEXT note higher will be an alto. The NEXT note higher will be an trumpet. and the TOP note will also be a trumpet. Regardless of WHERE you play them, regardless of how HARD you play them..."


Only then will we be hearing true "Divisi".

Ian

Hi Ian.
It works only as I've explained and demonstrated on a KORG.

Regards
James

Thanks James...it is quite different than how it is done on the Roland ARX card, but useful, nonetheless.

Ian

Yeah. Funny enough though it's not exactly something I'd ever use much on a workstation.

When it comes to workstations, the main point is to really sequence everything yourself.

Talking about sequencing... for anyone interested, here's two tracks I sequenced. One is by Enya and the other is the theme tune to the movie twister.

Watermark

Twister

Regards
James

Thanks for all the effort James, I am sorry that what I have posted has been so misconstrued, I have the utmost respect for you as a programmer.

Unfortunately, the MP3 example you posted is kind of hard to really distinguish the sounds, as you already used section brass sounds in the first place. It would be fascinating to hear how this works if you replace the section brass with SOLO instruments.

You see, in small section work (think Chicago, or EWF, TOP, that sort of thing) you are really talking about 3 or 4 SOLO parts, sometimes playing in unison (or octaves), sometimes spreading out for block chording, sometimes two or three holding, while one solos, that sort of thing. When all playing the same note, yes, you get a section. But the minute they divisi, you are really listening to four solo sounds. I would be fascinated (and a lot more enlightened) if perhaps you could run the same PCG but with bari, bone, alto and tpt solo sounds, and we might get a clearer indication of what is happening.

I understand your preference for sequencing all this, and in a sequenced environment, this is ideal. But we are ARRANGER players. We are looking for things that we can do LIVE, without prearranging it. And a horn section that automatically splits out to the solo parts when you chord is EXACTLY what you need for doing live horn parts in R&B and jazz, etc. Admittedly, not so much for Enya (but again, synth sounds opens many possibilities) but acoustic music revolves around divisi.

By the way, I am not touting the ARX board as the be all and end all. It is a good start, but needs more complex rules than simply additional voices from the bottom up as you add more notes. I would also like to see modes where, until you reach the section's true size, if you only play two note, they split down the middle (or bracket), if you play three, they go to 2 voices (if a six man section) etc., think basic rules govened by the size of your ensemble. I would like to see hold parameters, so if you play three notes and hold pedal them, the remaining voices either solo up or unison up and don't divisi. I'd like to see modes that automatically drop octaves of each of the parts as they climb outside their range.

The surface has only been scratched with what divisi and alternative note (or oscillator) assignments can do for us musically. And the beauty of it all is, it is simply code. To be honest, it isn't really very much more processor taxing than arranger 'Melody Intelligence' block chording tricks they already do. All it takes is for some of us to see the potential. After all, that's what got us Melody Intelligence in the first place.

Fair point, I should have use sounds that were completely different altogether from each other just to make it way easier to hear.



There are limits to how it works on a KORG from the Roland. For example, I cannot play one note and hear only one sound. I will hear them all, and only when I play a chord will I hear them spread out independent of each other.

So it's certainly backwards to the Roland. Or maybe the Roland is backward ???.. depends on your view I guess.

I kind of prefer hearing all the notes up front and only when I play a chord have them spread out. Seems more natural to me for it to work that way.



Live, it works exactly as I explained and no other way on a KORG.

Sequenced, anything is impossible.



Either way I'd like to see a KORG with the option to do it both ways.
Regards
James

I'd be happy if ANYTHING did it..!



Not quite sure that's what you meant, but it's a good motto for arranger players!