Lately, I've been playing around a lot with the effects and under-the-hood Sysex parameters. I wanted to see how far I could push them using delays and distortion.

I was able to tweak the settings so I had 5+ delays (isolating the predelays/delays/feedback delays for all three slots, and minimizing parameter effects). Working on some comb filtering and physical modeling/resonator effects.

Re: distortions, I was able to overdrive the internal blocks and color the grit using effect send routing, the hidden EQ settings, and return levels. Also possible to overdrive the mixer internally, and even the hardware audio out. With careful gain staging, this opens up many possibilities.

XG's thoughtful specs afford a surprising degree of sound design/synthesis control when thinking laterally! Anyone else using the QY's this way?

Will post more findings as they come.

开云体育

“The longest journey starts with the first step." ?- Lao Tzu

Thanks for the offer! I rigged up something similar in principle using Logic's environment and had a Peavey control surface for a while. It was satisfying to be that thorough, but I didn't actually use it for making music.

These days, I don't use realtime controllers. I prefer to shape the sound in by piping audio into my modular and modulating it there. Sometimes, I also use a CV -> MIDI controller box. For me, personally, that's more efficient, inspiring, and fun. But that's just me!

I am, however, happy to get under the hood with static parameters in the list editor when isolating aspects of the effects algorithms like the embedded delays. It's a lot of trial and error, but the precision is useful for things like comb filtering and resonators, where slight value changes make or break the effect.

@juhbuba

Very interesting. I picked up a QY100 last week, Had one many years ago but realized that I never pushed it’s potential. Once I started to peruse the styles, I fell in love with the QY100 all over again. That said, I have always felt that the guitars, especially with distortion, definitely lack. I’m very interested in your findings.

Cheers,
Steve?

That said, I have always felt that the guitars, especially with distortion, definitely lack. I’m very interested in your findings.

I think that may be more of an issue with generating controller data. Have you heard the demos Yamaha made in house? They were able to program some surprisingly convincing guitar solos, but there is a lot of bespoke parameter twiddling under the hood, I believe.

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.

Oh, also 41'38 (not as convincing) and 53'43 (impressive).

开云体育

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.

开云体育

“The longest journey starts with the first step." ?- Lao Tzu

Excellent, haven't seen this. Thanks for the link!

Oh, and then there's this:

Wonder how long that took to program.