Conference napalm::commusic_v1

RE < Note 2014.0 by WEFXEM::COTE "No marigolds in the promised land..." >

	DX instruments will generate MIDI CC#7 (and #6 for that matter) when the
DATA slider is moved.  This is true of every DX instrument I've used.

	Dan

P.S., If that still doesn't work, make sure channel info switch is ON.

    My KX88 is set up to gen #7 messages on MIDI ch 1 from the foot pedal
    and one data slider, and #7 for MIDI ch 2 on another data slider..
    there's no qualitative difference, except I can be a bit more precise
    using the slider.
    
    karl

    What do you do if the instrument you want to control is not on
    1 or 2?
    
    Edd

    re: .1 (Dan)
    
    What function must I be in for the DATA (distinction noted) slider
    to generate 7s?
    
    Edd

    < Note 2014.3 by WEFXEM::COTE "No marigolds in the promised land..." >
>    What do you do if the instrument you want to control is not on
>    1 or 2?
>    Edd

    The only time that's happening is when I'm using Performer on the
    MAC.  Performer has a 'patch thru' function which allows my keyboard
    to send channel 1 MIDI data incl patch change, notes, controllers,
    etc., to the MAC, which then will send it back out to ANY MIDI 
    channel # I want.  In fact, I only ever send on channel 1 TO the MAC 
    when recording, and let Performer rechannelize it.  Works neat.

    In fact I can even play along on a channel/track, even if there's
    already something recorded on the track, as long as recording is
    enabled for that track (invokes 'patch thru' function) as long as
    I'm not actually recording, if you follow, 'cause that would record
    over the selected track.  Geez, it's so clear on the screen..
    
    karl

RE < Note 2014.4 by WEFXEM::COTE "No marigolds in the promised land..." >

>    What function must I be in for the DATA (distinction noted) slider
>    to generate 7s?
    
	I'm not sure - could be (as I said earlier) channel info set to ON.  
Check to see what those MIDI function switches do.  It should tell you - or look
at the MIDI Implementation chart footnotes.

	Dan

    Hmmmm, tried again last night... The data slider does output a
    CC stream, but it's CC#6 and I've no way to remap...
    
    The volume slider just doesn't seem to output MIDI...
    
    Edd

RE < Note 2014.7 by WEFXEM::COTE "Dead ants are happy ants. Thrill one..." >

	's funny...  I have hooked up my DX100 to a midi monitor and found it 
gleefully spitting out CC6 and CC7 simultaneously when I move the data slider.
I assume the DX21 does the same.  Did you check the MIDI function switches?

	Dan

This may be an ignorant reply, but I wouldn't expect the volume slider to
output MIDI.  I would think that you would have to get the data slider
to do it.  To me, the volume slider is to set a master level of the SGU and
not for control.

Chad

    I'm pretty sure Chad's right regarding the volume slider, it's just a
    pot....
    
    ...but I can't get the data slider to output nadia but CC#6 regardless
    of the MIDI switch(es) positions...
    
    Edd

	Well, I looked it up last night (and even brought in my manual).  It 
says if the channel information switch is set to ON, the data entry slider will
send out volume info (CC7) in PLAY mode.  That's for the DX100 - is it different
for the other DX's?

	Dan

    A-ha! Maybe that's what I'm doing wrong. I've tried it whilst in
    FUNCTION or EDIT mode, possibly never trying PLAY mode.
    
    I assume PLAY mode is the one where just a voice name is displayed 
    on the LCD, as opposed to a FUNCTION or EDIT parameter.
    
    Results tomorrow...
    
    Edd

    While we're on the subject ...

    Anyone know of a drum machine that responds to CC7?  The HR16 doesn't,
    and I don't believe that the TR707 did.  Howzabout the R8?

-b

    Slight digression.  Rather than using 'volume' as a continuous
    controller, which takes mucho sequencer memory, I sometimes insert
    a cc #7 message at the beginning of some of the sequencer tracks,
    in order to control relative instrument volumes.  Of course, if
    there's a fade required for an instrument, I'll dub it using a data
    slider on the KX88.  
    
    karl

    
    
    re -2
    
    NO R8 does not respond to CC #7..
    
    Why would you want it to ?
    
    					Paul.
                                             
    	

>    NO R8 does not respond to CC #7..
    
>    Why would you want it to ?

Paul,

The only use for fading in or out on a drum machine that I can think of
would be for drum rolls, mallet rolls on timpani, cymbals, etc. Since they
respond to velocity though, a controller change is unnecessary.

dave

> < Note 2014.15 by WOTVAX::KENT >
>                                -< Faded drums ? >-
>     NO R8 does not respond to CC #7..
>     Why would you want it to ?

The D110's "percussion part" responds  to CC #7.

I use CC #7 for automated mixing on all channels, including percussion.

/Mitch

I can't think of a good reason why a device, no matter what it is, doesn't
respond to CC#7 to set the 'master level'. I use this feature all of the
time on my Roland MT-32 to adjust the mix from my sequencer. Independant
velocity control is not the same as overall level. If the R8 doesn't
respond to CC#7, then it's missing an important aspect of a MIDI SGU device.

							Jens

Re: note *-?  Do all DX's send out CC#7 with the data entry slider.

My DX7 has the E! upgrade in it and it can be remapped to send out CC#7 as 
well as lots of other things. Stock DX7, I don't know.

Geoff

    I can't make it work...
    
    Edd

	Have you checked the DX21 manual?  I've been referring to the DX100
manual under the assumption that they impliment similarly...  What does the
MIDI Implementation chart have to say about the continuous controllers?  There's
usually a list somewhere around the middle of the page...

	Dan

       <<< Note 2014.18 by CSC32::MOLLER "Nightmare on Sesame Street" >>>
                                 -< Huh????? >-

>I can't think of a good reason why a device, no matter what it is, doesn't
>respond to CC#7 to set the 'master level'. I use this feature all of the
>time on my Roland MT-32 to adjust the mix from my sequencer. Independant
>velocity control is not the same as overall level. If the R8 doesn't
>respond to CC#7, then it's missing an important aspect of a MIDI SGU device.

In order to get the best possible signal to noise ratio, it is recommended
on most equipment that the volume slider be left at maximum, and that the
sound level be controlled by velocity. This will also provide maximum
dynamic range and a consistent volume level bias. Since a few instruments, such
as organ, are not velocity sensitive, this does not universally apply. Also,
a number of older pieces of equipment used some other control change number
for volume, and it is usually mapable on MIDI controller keyboards.

dave

    Yep, I read the manual. The DX21 send and receives CC7, but apparently
    only generates the message from the foot pedal...
    
    Edd

>In order to get the best possible signal to noise ratio, it is recommended
>on most equipment that the volume slider be left at maximum

	I guess my argument for use of CC#7 is that like a record or tape
	or CD, you have note velocities that are played as they are intended
	to be played, and you have a seperate master volume control on
	your amplifier to set the level at which this collection of notes
	at thier defined velocities are played. I don't disagree that what
	you said is true, but I do feel that MIDI has brought a level of
	automation that is greatly weakend when you lose MIDI control over
	the master level of one of your devices, while the other ones 
	pay attention. In general, All of my MIDI gear connects to a single
	mixer & that has a master level control for me to tweek as needed.
	My drum section of the MT-32 has it's level set differently for
	many songs (it always gets it's level set at the beginning of every
	sequence - I don't like surprizes) & the sequencer knows how to tell
	it what level that it's supposed to be playing at. Since I have 60 or
	more sequences & the levels are potentially all different, I'd
	like the sequence to set the hardware up for me. Heaven knows that
	time delays when starting up songs is significant when you are
	playing live. Sometimes, I send out CC#7 in the middle of a
	a sequence to modify levels (such as a quiet passage). The less I 
	have to manually diddle with during a performance, the better (realize 
	that I'm also trying to play my guitar during these times & my hands
	are usually quite busy).

	I'm baffled at why CC#7 is missing from any modern MIDI SGU. It's
	an important feature for my needs.

								Jens

    Another argument for BOTH CC#7 (volume) and note velocity is that
    many SGU patches are velocity dependent, altering filter cutoff
    or some parameters via velocity.. having full velocity AND setting
    overall volume #7 gives you the best of both worlds. 
    
    Boo on units that don't accept velocity
     "   "   "     "    "     "    volume

I agree with Jens.  Using velocity to control overall volume levels is a hack.
Velocity response is very patch dependent.

Chad

    Well, I didn't mean to start a war.  Nevertheless, and regardless of
    how stupid the concept may seem, *I'd* like to see MIDI volume
    implemented on drum machines, because I'd like to *use* it.
    
    Sorry for appearing so stupid.

-b

>In order to get the best possible signal to noise ratio, it is recommended
>on most equipment that the volume slider be left at maximum, and that the
>sound level be controlled by velocity. This will also provide maximum
>dynamic range and a consistent volume level bias. Since a few instruments, such
>as organ, are not velocity sensitive, this does not universally apply.

This is what I stated in my previous note. I did not advocate eliminating CC7,
or using velocity as a master volume control. It is better to control the
master volume with an external line mixer *after* the SGUs. This is the way
pro-studios do it. I didn't make it up. In reading the VFX manual last night,
it specifically states that the master volume slider should always be left at
maximum, if possible, for best performance. This is also recommended by
Kurzweil and Roland in their manuals. Live performing is a different case.
Unless you have a sound man, it is not really feasible to be adjusting a
mixer during a song while you are singing and playing an instrument. By using
CC7 you pay the price in reduced SN ratio and dynamic range, but it usually
doesn't matter because of all the background noise. If you are playing a
keyboard or controlling SGUs via a MIDI controller board, it is still better
to use *external* volume pedals if possible. The SN ratio and dynamic range
happen *inside* the SGU. I disagree that using velocity is a hack.

You can get *much* more expression and realism in MIDI sequences if you take
advantage of the envelope parameters for volume, pitch, and filtering by
using velocity as a modulator. This implies that your instrument patches are
set up properly to make the timbre of the instrument respond correctly. Most
of the acoustic instrument patches I've heard sound very unrealistic because
the only thing that happens is that the sound gets louder (volume envelope)
with higher velocities.
Real horns, strings, woodwinds, percussion, pianos, etc. have radical timbre
variations based upon velocity of wind or striking force. That is why I like
the Ensoniq keyboards so much. They have both hard velocity and soft velocity
amplitude, filter, and pitch envelopes that can be precisely adjusted for
much greater realism.

dave

ps. I regard this as an important and interesting discussion. I didn't mean
    to give any impression that a war had started. Aren't we allowed to have
    a discussion and disagreement in here without calling it a war? You
    people definitely have the wrong impression of my intentions.

    I wasn't dinging you, Dave.  Sorry for the misunderstanding ... today
    started out bad and is getting worse as I type.  Everything else you
    posted in -.1 is on the money, as far as I can tell.

-b the abashed

No war intended.  Velocity is great, but not as a final level setter.  That
is what CC#7 is for.  I leave my volume controls at high and use
my M-160 to control stuff but I don't have and a lot of
instruments don't provide a separate line out for each timbre/voice and
I wouldn't want to control mega-lines either.  There is a need to
be able to control the volume in the SGU (and not with velocity).  for
example, SGUs with polyphonic/multi-timbral outputs sometimes need to have
the horns volume changed to match that of the piano (all in the same
output) or similar.

Velocity is a problem for setting relative volumes.  Like you said, velocity
varies widely with the patch.  If I have one horn patch and set velocities
for it (for general volume, not effect) and change patches, I have
to change all my velocities again (and velocity can't be used for effect
if it is being used for general volume control.)

Anyway, people are nagging me to help them, more later.

Chad

       <<< Note 2014.30 by NORGE::CHAD "Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte" >>>
                            -< volume and velocity >-

Chad,

I agree. I guess I've been spoiled by the VFX and EPS, which have individual
volume levels adjustable for each patch/instrument/track/preset. On these
two instruments, you can just leave the volume slider all the way up, and
adjust the individual levels via a data slider. This keeps the final output
amplifier at peak efficiency, while adjusting the mix during D/A conversion
in the digital domain. It would be interesting to see the schematics for
other "synths" to compare volume slider circuitry. On the ones I've seen,
(Kurzweil, Ensoniq) it is a pot that controls the output of an opamp which
in turn sets the gain of a power output transistor.

dave

Dave,

True a lot of SGUs allow through knob-turning/sliding to set the various
instrument/patch volume levels on a polyphonic output.  And the CC#7 volume
controller should change those same values but over midi instead of through
a switch.

Chad

       <<< Note 2014.32 by NORGE::CHAD "Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte" >>>
                                   -< more >-
Chad,

Unfortunately, CC7 will likely control the master output amplifier gain.
It requires SYSEX commands to control the individual instrument volumes.

dave

It shouldn't.  There was talk about this in the latest EM to -- about
MIDI mixdowns.  CC#7 should be channel specific.  I know the MT32 does
it this way.

Chad

       <<< Note 2014.34 by NORGE::CHAD "Ich glaube Ich t�te Ich h�tte" >>>
                                 -< shouldn't >-

It does though. You can assign the instruments to any channel you want, which
means more than one instrument per channel. You have to do SYSEX to distinguish
which instrument you are talking to.

dave

But if you have more than one instrument per channel then you are in effect 
setting up a layer or split or similar so the CC#7 is per "instrument".
A layer is like 1 instrument.

:-)

Chad

>But if you have more than one instrument per channel then you are in effect 
>setting up a layer or split or similar so the CC#7 is per "instrument".
>A layer is like 1 instrument.

Chad,

My point exactly. If I have a keyboard split that consists of an entire
drum kit, I definitely don't want to use CC7 to turn down the entire drum
kit. You want the individual drums to respond to *velocity* and change
their timbres accordingly using envelopes with velocity as the modulator.
You want to do the master volume control outside of the EPS. The EPS
volume slider should always be kept at maximum, as should the VFX, 1000PX,
D50, and every other good synth that I know of. CC7 is pass�. It was fine
for montimbral synths. We've come full circle and are right back to what
I said in the beginning. On my equipment, with MTP as the sequencer, CC#7
is neither necessary nor desirable.

dave

    re the last few... CC7 vs. modifying velocity..
    
    They both have their place.  If I have a piano track that is too
    loud in the mix, and I have other instrument parts coming from the
    same SGU as the piano, then the logical way to reduce the piano
    volume in the mix is to put a CC7 message in the first bar of the
    sequence.  I could instead have reduced piano velocity thru the
    entire track, but there's a drawback.. many of the patches I use
    have their brightness and attack triggered by velocity.. shrinking
    CC7 instead of velocity leaves me the brightness I want, and still
    lowers overall volume.
    
    On the other hand, like Dave Orin,  I also use the keyboard to record
    drum parts.  The sounds reside in the EMAX, mapped across the keyboard,
    usually all responding to the same MIDI channel.  I usually record
    kick and snare together, hihat alone, ride/crash alone, toms and
    incidental perc alone.  All sending to the same MIDI channel.  So
    in order to vary the balance of these instrument parts, altering
    velocity thru the whole track is the only way, as CC7 would affect
    ALL parts.  Of course, when I'm done, if the drums overall are too
    loud, then CC7 is appropriate.
    
    best. karl

CC7 is not on the way out -- it should be reaching higher ground now that we
have multi-timbral/polyphonic midi modules!!

CC7 is used for controlling different instruments overall levels.  In the case
of drums panned across the keyboard of course you wouldn't want CC7 to control
the various volumes of the drums.  Usually however, there is a single instrument
per midi channel and cc7 provides a per channel/instrument way of controlling
the dynamics of the piece.  The crescendos, the decrescendos, etc.  It also
allows the individual instruments to be mixed better through polyphonic
outputs.

Velocity has a different purpose -- and velocity and cc7 together make a great
system.  Velocity allows the patch a greater range of expressiveness.
Punches of sound are done with velocity -- brightness, note by note variances
in loudness, attack and release envelopes, accents, sforzandos, etc --  
these and other characteristics of the sound are controlled by velocity.

All the while, the master volume controller can be left at max loud.

Velocity and cc7 go hand in hand -- they are different and complimentary
features and no serious midi-composer/engineer/whatever will ignore one or the
other.

You are only causing yourself problems if you try to control overall piece
dynamics only through velocity.  One thing you will do to yourself
if nothing else is to make your sequences more "patch specific" as each patch
reacts differently to velocity.

Chad

Chad,

>CC7 is not on the way out -- it should be reaching higher ground now that we
>have multi-timbral/polyphonic midi modules!!

It's not on the way out. For me, it's out.

>The crescendos, the decrescendos, etc.  It also
>allows the individual instruments to be mixed better through polyphonic
>outputs.

The crescendos and decrescendos are done using velocity in MTP, and this is
as it should be. Show me the volume control on an acoustic piano! An acoustic
piano is controlled by velocity. The timbre changes with velocity. If you want
a bright piano, use a different piano, or a different patch. CC7 is the hack.

Polyphonic outputs are meant to be sent to a master mixing console *outside*
of the instrument.

>All the while, the master volume controller can be left at max loud.

You missed the point. If CC7 changes the gain of the final output power
amplifier stage, then you've lost dynamic range and signal to noise ratio.
This is not acceptable for recording applications. I'm not speculating or
guessing; come to my studio again and I'll prove it.

>Velocity and cc7 go hand in hand -- they are different and complimentary
>features and no serious midi-composer/engineer/whatever will ignore one or the
>other.

That's old school thinking. I totally disagree. The latest technologies
completely defy your statement. It is also quite ludicrous to make broad
sweeping statements about what "no serious whoseit" will do. I'm doing it, I'm
serious, and it works *very* well for me. Come and listen to "Eine Kleine
Nacht Musik" on the 1000PX. There isn't one CC7 in the entire 59 Kbyte
sequence, and I'll wager you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference from
a real string orchestra. The stringed instruments are particularly sensitive
to attack velocity. The 1000PX handles that velocity by changing the timbre
appropriately. If the equipment you are using doesn't do this, there is no
sense even using velocity. It won't sound realistic. If you're equipment
does do this, then CC7 is highly undesireable.

>You are only causing yourself problems if you try to control overall piece
>dynamics only through velocity.  One thing you will do to yourself
>if nothing else is to make your sequences more "patch specific" as each patch
>reacts differently to velocity.

I want the sequences to be patch specific. If you want to get the best quality
recordings with the most realistic sounding synthesized or sampled acoustic
instruments, you will avoid using CC#7, and use velocity only. It's not causing
any problems whatsoever.

dave

    < Note 2014.40 by SUBSYS::ORIN "Got a bad case of VFX" >

>Polyphonic outputs are meant to be sent to a master mixing console *outside*
>of the instrument.
    
    Well, I've got, like you, a 1000PX... WHAT 'polyphonic outputs'?
    The multipart mixing in the 1000PX must be done INSIDE the instrument.
    
>An acoustic
>piano is controlled by velocity. The timbre changes with velocity. If you want
>a bright piano, use a different piano, or a different patch. CC7 is the hack.
    
    Well, I happen to love the stereo grand, PX patch 16.  The only
    way to get it bright is to push the velocity.  Once I've done that,
    it's really really loud in the mix.  And I don't like piano 15 or
    17 at all.. TOO harsh.  So how now to shrink its volume ?
    
>Come and listen to "Eine Kleine
>Nacht Musik" on the 1000PX. There isn't one CC7 in the entire 59 Kbyte
>sequence, and I'll wager you'll be hard pressed to tell the difference from
>a real string orchestra. The stringed instruments are particularly sensitive
>to attack velocity. 
    
    Of course they are !  But what if you get the sharpness you want
    using full velocity on that patch, but that patch/part is too loud within
    the mix coming from the machine ?  
    
    I see two options : dump that part to a synced tape track and mix
    externally, or use CC7 to shrink its output level to match the
    other parts coming from the 1000PX.

>If CC7 changes the gain of the final output power
>amplifier stage, then you've lost dynamic range and signal to noise ratio.
>This is not acceptable for recording applications. 
    
    I submit that dumping a part to tape in order to avoid any loss
    of waveform resolution by using CC7 OR velocity is a moot point,
    as analog recording has more builtin noise than the noise you would
    get mixing 'internally' in the 1000PX by using CC7 or shrinking
    velocities.  And I have an 8-track running 15 IPS with Dolby 'C'.

    The ONLY reason I ever dump Kurzweil instrument tracks to tape is
    when I need to impose an effect or special EQ on it, and don't want
    to do the same effect/EQ on the other Kurzweil instruments.
   
    So to conclude : with an instrument with lots'o'polyphony, like
    the Kurzweil, there are three ways to do the mix :
    
    o	Dump individual instruments to tape tracks
        PLUS : can do special EQ, panning, and effects
        MINUS :  adds analog tape hiss to mix, ties up mixer channel,
    	plus mixer channel residual noise
        
    o	Set cc7 for those sequenced tracks that require it (too loud)
	PLUS : volume adjust without modifying timbre
    	MINUS : shrinks effective waveform resolution (worse S/N)
        
    o	Shrink velocities for those tracks that require it (too loud)
        PLUS : volume adjust
	MINUS : modifies timbre on expressive patches, shrinks effective
    	waveform resolution (worse S/N)
    
    karl 
karl    

>Polyphonic outputs are meant to be sent to a master mixing console *outside*
>of the instrument.

minor point:  polyphonic outputs are single outputs that pass many voices
at once.  Example -- the outputs on the 1000 PX.  Multi-timbral SGUs with only
a stereo pair have these.  Some multi-out SGUs have these for the separate outs
(like the R8).

monophonic outputs play only one note at a time through them -- example,
the separate outs on my TX16W ( :-(  ).  Many instruments with multiple
outs have these.

So playing with the polyphonic outs outside the SGU only allows you to play
with the mix.


>>All the while, the master volume controller can be left at max loud.

>You missed the point. If CC7 changes the gain of the final output power
>amplifier stage, then you've lost dynamic range and signal to noise ratio.
>This is not acceptable for recording applications. I'm not speculating or
>guessing; come to my studio again and I'll prove it.

On most SGUs I'd think that CC7 affects the signals internally before the
final output power stage in the SGU, not the output power amplifier stage 
itself.

>The crescendos and decrescendos are done using velocity in MTP, and this is
>as it should be. Show me the volume control on an acoustic piano! An acoustic


I use MTP too and I use CC7 with it for this type of overall stuff.  I 
sometimes use velocity for this stuff too I'll admit.

Just some minor clarifications.

I see what's happening; we're basically agreeing on lots of points, and
having some terminology misunderstandings. By polyphonic outputs, I thought
that you were referring to the separate, panable, individual outputs
on many SGUs e.g. R8, EPS, S550, etc. These outputs are also polyphonic, in
that any combination of instruments can be assigned to any output.
Since I use the 1000PX for only one instrument. e.g. piano or strings at a
time, I don't have to worry about individual volumes using CC7. I assign the
other instruments to a different piece of hardware. If I want another sound
from the Kurzweil, I sample it onto the EPS and use it there.

Example:

1000PX String orchestra section, patch 026 or Stereo Grand Piano

EPS	woodwinds
	  Oboe		output 1
	  Bassoon	output 2
	  Flute		output 3
	  Clarinet	output 4
	horns
	  trumpet	output 5
	  trombone	output 6
	  french horn	output 7
	strings sampled off 1000PX if necessary

S550	strings, exotic percussion (gongs, etc.) or whatever
	  9 outputs

R8	percussion
	  timpani	output 1
	  conc crash	output 2
	  conc bass	output 3

I do all of the pre-mixing on the M160 then the EQ and final mix on an external
master mixing board. I don't use multi-track or sync at all. I mix down straight
to RDAT and I'm done. The f/x can get added on either mixer or from within
the SGU  (VFX, D50, etc.). I use velocity, exclusively, on the sequencer. Once
the f/x and mixers are adjusted, there are no controls to touch and no CC7
during the final taping.

>monophonic outputs play only one note at a time through them -- example,

I think you mean only one patch/instrument rather than "note". You can play
chords, no? The term "polyphonic output" isn't really clear, since it does
not explain whether you mean one instrument/many voices or many instruments/
many voices. The term "stereo outputs" is normally used to describe hardware
like the 1000PX or base EPS. The term "individual outputs" is normally used
to indicate the many output hardware such as R8, S550, EPS with output
expander, D110, etc.

>On most SGUs I'd think that CC7 affects the signals internally before the
>final output power stage in the SGU, not the output power amplifier stage 
>itself.

It would be nice, but is not the case on the K250. That is the only unit
I have the schematics for right now. They use what is called an "AMPDAC",
which means a digitally controlled D/A converter which controls the
output stage gain of each channel (voice).

The K250 has one extra stage of amplification for each of the 12 channels,
prior to the final output stage. There is one AMPDAC for each channel. The
volume slider controls the final output stage; CC7 controls the "pre-amp"
stages. The use of CC7 still reduces SN and dynamic range within each channel
(instrument). If it were done in the software (digital) domain prior to
D/A conversion, this would not be the case.

I'm sure that less expensive and older equipment also controlled the final
output stage with CC7, since I have seen schematics.

I guess it really boils down to:

1. The amount of equipment you have
2. The type of equipment you have
3. Your application (recording vs. live)

I concede that there is a valid use for CC7 on some equipment in certain
configurations. I don't need it or use it. Just spoiled, I guess! 8^))

have a good weekend,

dave

  <<< Note 2014.41 by SALSA::MOELLER "Never say 'forget it' to a computer." >>>
                          -< more on CC7 vs velocity >-

>    Well, I've got, like you, a 1000PX... WHAT 'polyphonic outputs'?
>   The multipart mixing in the 1000PX must be done INSIDE the instrument.

Semantic problem and I wasn't referring to the 1000PX.
    
>    Well, I happen to love the stereo grand, PX patch 16.  The only
>    way to get it bright is to push the velocity.  Once I've done that,
>    it's really really loud in the mix.  And I don't like piano 15 or
>    17 at all.. TOO harsh.  So how now to shrink its volume ?

Edit the patch for a brighter sound. Sell it to Kurzweil (or me 8^))
    
>    Of course they are !  But what if you get the sharpness you want
>    using full velocity on that patch, but that patch/part is too loud within
>    the mix coming from the machine ?  

Option 3: edit the patch, envelopes, etc. or use a different patch
    
>    I submit that dumping a part to tape in order to avoid any loss
>    of waveform resolution by using CC7 OR velocity is a moot point,
>    as analog recording has more builtin noise than the noise you would
>    get mixing 'internally' in the 1000PX by using CC7 or shrinking
>    velocities.  And I have an 8-track running 15 IPS with Dolby 'C'.

Agreed, and not suggested by me.

>    o	Dump individual instruments to tape tracks
>        PLUS : can do special EQ, panning, and effects
>        MINUS :  adds analog tape hiss to mix, ties up mixer channel,
>    	plus mixer channel residual noise
 
Not acceptable.
       
>    o	Set cc7 for those sequenced tracks that require it (too loud)
>	PLUS : volume adjust without modifying timbre
>   	MINUS : shrinks effective waveform resolution (worse S/N)

Edit patch, or modify sequencer track using MTP "Change" menu features.
        
>    o	Shrink velocities for those tracks that require it (too loud)
>        PLUS : volume adjust
>	MINUS : modifies timbre on expressive patches, shrinks effective
>    	waveform resolution (worse S/N)

I always set the velocity of each note for the appropriate expression.
Mixing is done externally (see previous note). I agree that multiple
individual outputs would be extremely nice for the 1000PX. Does the
PX Plus have multiple individual outputs?

dave

Just a note about polyphonic and monophonic outs.  What I described
in my previous reply is what literature and user's guides call
the various forms of audio outputs.  A "stereo pair" is a
specific kind of polyphonic out -- dual polyphonic outs used 
together to form a stereo image.  Separate outs can be
either polyphonic (multiple notes at once [ mixed timbres allowed]
from the out) or monophonic (one *note* from the out only).
These mono  outs are useful for such things as open and closed
high hats as changing note cuts previous off.  (this exact
use is why the R8 [which has polyphonic outs] included the
exclusive1-8 feature where sounds can be assigned an exclusive 
number in the output stage where any new note with the same 
exclusive number cuts previous note off and then sounds.  A
similar feature eas added to the Akai S1000 for the same reason.
(S1000 - poly outs, S900 - monophonic individual outs)).

The only literature/written material I could find in the 4 minutes
I took to look was in the Dec 88 KEYBOARD review of the S1000
but I've seen it other places.  Admittedlyoften the sales
hype neglects to say anything about the outs except that it has 
'n' stereo pairs and 'k' individual outs.

My equipment is as follows:  D-50  -- stereo pair
                             R8 -- stereo pair and 8 individual
                                   polyphonic outs
                             TX16W -- stereo pair/2 polyphonic
                                      and 8 monophonic outs.


Just found a good example!  Look in the March 89 sampler
edition of KEYBOARD.  Look at the comparative features chart
that lists prices, memory, disk drive and other features.
One column is titled "Number of outputs and type (mono, poly)"


Anyway

Good night!  Have a good weekend.  What are you doing reading 
this over the weekend? Go home or hang up and play family :-) :-).

Chad