Hey all,
I got a QY70 not too long back and I've used it to make rough sketches of songs to finish if I'm out and about, so that I have something to work on when I get home. It's fulfilling its purpose well and I love it!!! I recently used the QY Filer to get files off the QY70 and that worked perfectly fine, I tried today to load a file onto the device but I've been encountering an issue where the software will say that the file has been recieved, but it's not on thq QY70. If I try to load a MIDI onto the device, it even gives me an error on the screen, but the software says its a-ok.
I'm assuming its my MIDI interface as it was only cheap (MidiPlus 2x2) so do you guys have any recommendations on any better (but affordable alternatives). I did buy a MOTU Midi Express XT USB used recently but despite multiple tutorials, I couldn't get it to work and have returned it.
If it's not my interface, what else might it be instead.
Thanks a billion,
Icosahedron
|
Thanks for your reply! And sorry for my late response to it. I figured out I could use SysEx Librarian to do the backup, which is free! So I chose it over the MDF! It works flawlessly btw.
|
Been keeping my eye on it for some time. Quite pricey, here in Europe at least.
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
I’ve had issues using “newer” Midi interfaces on old software.?It might be possible due to the speed of the interface. If you can, try with an old usb interface. I keep a Generation 1 midisport 4x4 USB (from the early 2000) for this type of situations and it always solved the issues, even running on emulation.?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 31, 2022, at 7:28 PM, Rocky via < Wsbsub@...> wrote:
I managed to install the program using this utility pretty easily and can connect and receive data from the QY100. The MIDI in/out ports seem to be recognized in the Device setup window. Sadly transmitting is causing some issues. Almost always fails with -
"Data transfer Failed. Confirm QY100?connections(HOST SELECT switch, etc.)"
I tried installing MIDI drivers for my MIDI interface (Focusrite Scarlett) but encountered security update issues trying to do that also...?
I feel I'm in another rabbit hole..?
Glad it's working for some of you though!!
Thanks for the tip..
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
I managed to install the program using this utility pretty easily and can connect and receive data from the QY100. The MIDI in/out ports seem to be recognized in the Device setup window. Sadly transmitting is causing some issues. Almost always fails with -
"Data transfer Failed. Confirm QY100?connections(HOST SELECT switch, etc.)"
I tried installing MIDI drivers for my MIDI interface (Focusrite Scarlett) but encountered security update issues trying to do that also...?
I feel I'm in another rabbit hole..?
Glad it's working for some of you though!!
Thanks for the tip..
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
Woah, thanks so much for this! Lost a bunch of patterns years back when the coin battery died, so I've wanted a convenient backup method for awhile. Also on Apple Silicon here, so excited to try this.
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
Cool, sure thing!
I don't recall having any drama with the data filer at all. The only thing that comes to mind, is to be sure your MIDI interface is plugged in and turned on before running any windows app— I've generally found that they won't detect a device when plugged in after they are running.
Once playonmac is installed, you can go through a "+ Install" flow directly and select "Install a non-listed program" text in the bottom left corner of the installation window, or just right-click any windows app within finder and select playonmac to open it. I don't believe it normally asks, but it if does, you would want to set it to a 32-bit windows config.
Hope it's a smooth process for you, let us know once you've given it a go :)
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
Thanks so much for the response.
I'll give this a try..
Do you have any warnings or gotchas before I run into unforeseen complications?
Cheers, Rocky
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
Hi there! It is actually pretty straightforward to use the QY Data filer on a modern mac (tested on M1 mbp), but counterintuitively, the easiest method is via the Windows version of the application.
You don't need a deal with the complexity of a virtual machine, as it runs perfectly via / WINE. This means it has direct access to any connected MIDI interface without special setup.
I've found that a good number of older windows apps I've tried for MIDI-related tasks run quite stably this way, such as SoundDiver and XGWorks.
Hope that helps!
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
Rocky,I saw your multiple posts about emulation trying to run the XG Software. Let me share what I have learned?through the years.Around 2003 (when the Apple G5 was released), I saw a behind the scenes photo of a Jean Michell Jarre's Concert, and I saw his setup had a PowerPC Tower of 1997. “Why did he kept that old Mac when he has the money to get a G5?” - You may ask.I’ve seen the following scenarios on MIDI/audio software:- Software for Motorola 68K that did not run on new CPU (PowerPC).- Software for PowerPC OS9 that did not run on new OS (OS X) ?even with Rosetta.- Software for OS X that did not run on new CPU (Intel).- Software for OS X Intel that did not run on new OS that run 64bit mode.- Software for OS X Intel 64bits that did not run on new CPU (Apple silicon) even with Rosetta.And windows had the same problems between OS’s, some times worse. And do not want to start listing my audio interfaces history, because that is an even longer list of issues due to hardware drivers, not including architectural issues (before USB).If you want to work on some device, keep the computer. You want to update the computer? Expect to update all your software and equipment.
“Always keep a computer that runs your equipment required software”. I heard this in the 90s.?I’m typing this on a M2?MacBook Air with a 2 days old MacOS, but my studio is still running on a 2013 Mac Pro with High Sierra.?I still have a G3 iBook, MacBook Pro Intel (with VMWare to launch virtual machines for windows (98, XP, 7) and old OS X versions). Still there is software I know I cannot run. No Emulation is 100% warrantied to work with any software, but even less from different CPU architectures.?
I have a QY100 for dumping MIDI into a card if I want to, but the cards are not produced anymore. That’s a bummer. I Still I could dump via MIDI a full track, but is not the same as a transfer. My QY700 runs with a USB Gotek, so no issues here, it is future proof. But I could never modify an Alesis MMT-8.?
Thankfully, I see the QYs as fun toys to keep around and not as my main work tools. For my day to day tools, the only solution (at least for me) was to never again buy any MIDI/AUDIO equipment that requires software or drivers for operation. I’ve been on this ideology since mid 2000’s. If I get a device which requires software or a driver I do so knowing it can become garbage any day. Thanks to this, I keep using the same devices in my studio since then. The QY70 is fun, but do not ask it to do more that you can do on it.
You have 4 options:
- Get an old computer from a friend’s attic.
- Spend weeks of your time finding a way to make an old software run on your new computer, even if you are not successful.
- Figure out what the software did so you can find a way to do it with your current tools, or program a new solution!
- Forget the software and just use midi dumps if needed.
Good luck.
|
Re: Data Filer for modern Macs? (Monterrey etc)
Quick update:-
UTM (which uses QEMU emulator) seemed promising, but Mac support for the emulator is patchy-
I've been unable to find a way to share data between the host (Mac Monterey) and guest (Mac OS9.2). Shared directory requires unsupported drivers, as does setting up a hard drive.
I can get data INTO Mac OS9 (by using a virtual CD Drive) but not out!!
So, it seems this solution is effectively restricted to running in a sandbox, like the other emulator that was mentioned..
I'm cutting my losses and will just use my PC laptop to run the Filer in future.
Rocky.
|
That's impressive. Possibly done via midi guitar?
|
Oh, and then there's this:
Wonder how long that took to program.
|
List Book sez channel can be set for each track?
Was reading the QY70 List Book and came across the following on page 52:
(3) TRANSMIT/RECEIVE DATA
(3-1) CHANNEL VOICE MESSAGE
Transmitted only during recording and playback.
Transmission channel can be turned On/Off and the transmit channel set for each track.
That last bit "transmit channel [can be] set for each track" is news to me. I know track output can be disabled, and I know the channel each tone generator part responds to can be set.
And I know about routing the pattern tracks to MIDI channels 1-8 or 9-16. But how can an individual track's transmit channel be changed?
Not clear to me from the manual and haven't come across this anywhere else. Anybody know if this can actually be done, and how?
|
Excellent, haven't seen this. Thanks for the link!
|
Just thought I would post this for anyone new to midi or those trying to make more realistic sounding instruments with Midi…
This is a nice 5 part series from Sound On Sound… ?it actually gets pretty deep in parts but easy to understand overall:?
Cheers, Eric
["The longest journey starts with the first step."?- Lao Tzu]
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 27, 2022, at 10:10 PM, jonah@... wrote:
?
The last track (53’43) Does not have the
cheapie sound of a tone generator at
all!
Yes, the phrasing and dynamics are impeccable.
For me, the only tell is the uniformity of the attacks. Not so much the attack time, but the way a real guitar string resonates differently if you brush it with a fingernail, play with the pad of the thumb, or a pick near the bridge.
I think you'd need to use something like physical modeling to approximate that degree of detail, though. And its lack isn't noticeable if you're not looking for it. Nor does it really impact the musical effect.
Pretty amazing what can be done with tech from two and a half decades ago! Gotta up my programming game....
The deeper I get into programming XG, the more impressed I am with the spec. Some things are irritating, like the lack of a separate filter envelope or a sustain level setting.
But the more I use it, the more workarounds I find. Despite the intervening innovation and advancement in music tech, I never really feel held back by the mid-90's XG spec.
It does take a lot of time and effort to learn, though. These days, I find myself focused on exploiting it to achieve weird, abstract, and unexpected sounds.
--
“The longest journey starts with the first step." ?- Lao Tzu
|
The last track (53’43) Does not have the
cheapie sound of a tone generator at
all!
Yes, the phrasing and dynamics are impeccable.
For me, the only tell is the uniformity of the attacks. Not so much the attack time, but the way a real guitar string resonates differently if you brush it with a fingernail, play with the pad of the thumb, or a pick near the bridge.
I think you'd need to use something like physical modeling to approximate that degree of detail, though. And its lack isn't noticeable if you're not looking for it. Nor does it really impact the musical effect.
Pretty amazing what can be done with tech from two and a half decades ago! Gotta up my programming game....
The deeper I get into programming XG, the more impressed I am with the spec. Some things are irritating, like the lack of a separate filter envelope or a sustain level setting.
But the more I use it, the more workarounds I find. Despite the intervening innovation and advancement in music tech, I never really feel held back by the mid-90's XG spec.
It does take a lot of time and effort to learn, though. These days, I find myself focused on exploiting it to achieve weird, abstract, and unexpected sounds.
|
The last track (53’43) Does not have the cheapie sound of a tone generator at all! That clearly shows that efforts on sound design and programmed performance do not go unnoticed!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Oct 27, 2022, at 6:05 PM, jonah@... wrote:
Oh, also 41'38 (not as convincing) and 53'43 (impressive).
_._,_._,_
|
Oh, also 41'38 (not as convincing) and 53'43 (impressive).
|
A couple examples of the Yamaha programmed XG guitar tracks at 3'33 and 12'15:
Probably some more examples later in that demo, too.
|
dusk
Eric