Yamaha M61 - Key sensitivity (touch response) for organ sounds

[Soestrada]

Hello!

I was looking to upgrade my old Yamaha PSR. I got the Roland XPS-10 and, to my surprise, most organ and harpsichord sounds had no touch/key sensitivity. It's as if it was set to off for all those sounds. I'd hate to perform like that so I returned it.

Next in line was the new Casio CT-s500. I've heard tons of good reviews etc. so I gave it a shot. It arrived today. First impression was that sounds were really sub-par. And, lo and behold, touch response (key sensitivity) is off for organ sounds. I'd rather play on my old PSR from the 1990's then.

My next choice in line would be the MX61. It's almost twice as expensive as the CT-s500 and I won't use most of its features; I don't need lots of sound editing features, just some basic sounds. But I will not play organ sounds without keys that support dynamic presses. Does anyone know whether the MX61 also has this limitation?

I don't understand why both the Roland and the Casio would have it. Realistic, yes, but why not give people the choice? Switching the setting to off would be easy enough for those wanting to play these instruments the more realistic way.

Thanks a bunch!

 

[happyrat1]

You answered your own question.

Happy ranting...

unwatching...

 

[happyrat1]

BTW, if you want to get into unnatural sounds get a subtractive synth.

You can play with envelopes til the cows come home.

Gary

 

[Soestrada]

You answered your own question.

Wait, I did?

So, does the MX61 work the same way? Or does it not? That is, does key touch/sensitivity affect organ sounds in the MX61, or does it not?

That was my question. I've looked into the manual (as I had done with the s500) but did not find info about it.

 

[delaware dave]

I will not play organ sounds without keys that support dynamic presses

Switching the setting to off would be easy enough for those wanting to play these instruments the more realistic way.

You're out of touch. REAL organs don't support dynamic touch response, pianos do. Take a Hammond, Farfisa, Vox Continental, a church organ, none of those keyboards support touch sensitivity. The manufacturer, in order to preserve 'the realistic way', intentionally made the keys non touch responsive. So putting in a setting in order to switch this off would actually be the opposite of the realistic way. So what you are really asking for is a solution that is NON-REALISTIC. You won't find it on most quality keyboard models; models that actually do what you want would be cheap keyboards whose organ probably wouldn't sound much like an organ to begin with.

 

[Soestrada]

You're out of touch. REAL organs don't support dynamic touch response, pianos do. Take a Hammond, Farfisa, Vox Continental, a church organ, none of those keyboards support touch sensitivity. The manufacturer, in order to preserve 'the realistic way', intentionally made the keys non touch responsive. So putting in a setting in order to switch this off would actually be the opposite of the realistic way. So what you are really asking for is a solution that is NON-REALISTIC. You won't find it on most quality keyboard models; models that actually do what you want would be cheap keyboards whose organ probably wouldn't sound much like an organ to begin with.

Thanks!

From a realism standpoint I can see it makes a lot of sense to have it so as default. But it does seem off to not be able to set it to behave differently - even at the cost of realism. It's a digital instrument after all.

Would there be any mid-range synth keyboard you'd know or could recommend which would have this feature?

I distinctively remember playing on a Roland FP30X a couple of months ago and the organ sounds def. had sensitive keys. Unfortunately this one having weighted 88 keys it's too impractical to carry around as much as I have to.

 

[happyrat1]

Go ahead. Petition all the manufacturers with your Idea,

A VA or Analog synth can do what you want, but your typical ROMpler uses multisamples. There are no multisamples available for bowed string instruments and organs and woodwinds. BECAUSE they don't exist in nature.

Why waste memory recording multisamples for these things when they don't require it in the first place.

ROM costs money too.

If you are looking for that kind of control, model it yourself on an analog synth which doesn't follow ROMpler rules.

Gary

 

[happyrat1]

BTW, REAL organs don't use samples. They use tonewheels or transistor oscillators to begin with.

Gary

 

[anotherscott]

The MX61 doesn't include built-in editing functions, but you can edit the sounds with an external editor like the one from John Melas which should let you make the organs velocity sensitive (you can save the externally edited sounds back into the keyboard for subsequent use when not connected to the computer).

Side note... the MX61 doesn't have an "organ engine," it uses samples (rompler-style), but no additional samples are needed for velocity sensitivity. A single sample can play at any volume. It's just a matter of programmable settings, telling it whether it should always play the sound at the same level, of it it should play it at a different volume depending on how hard you hit the key. Any "rompler" style board that has full editing functions should be able to be made velocity sensitive for its organ sounds. So in the same price range as the MX61, probably also Roland Juno DS and Korg Kross, both of which have built-in editing functions.

 

[happyrat1]

$1000 keyboards you mention all have crippled sound engines compared to higher priced workstations $2000 and up. And those usually include full VA capabilities.

And I do guarantee on any decent ROMpler, the pianos are ALL multisampled at different velocity levels.

Kurzweil first brought in triple strike decades ago.

Gary

 

[anotherscott]

$1000 keyboards you mention all have crippled sound engines compared to higher priced workstations $2000 and up.

Sure. But he's looking at an MX, so I mentioned options in that price range. If he has twice the money, of course he can do better.

And those usually include full VA capabilities.

He has not mentioned anything about needing VA, though. (VA is not needed to make an organ sound respond to velocity.)

And I do guarantee on any decent ROMpler, the pianos are ALL multisampled at different velocity levels.

He wasn't asking about piano sounds, just organ sounds. Rompler organ sounds are sampled at just one level... but that doesn't need to stop them from responding to velocity. (In fact, romplers often have lots of velocity-sensitive sounds that are sampled at just one level. And years ago, that included piano sounds, too!)

 

[happyrat1]

What you're describing for the manufacturer is the addition of a "legacy mode" engine that conflicts with the standard ROMpler engine.

This complicates programming and processing power adding additional expense for a feature that no one is willing to pay extra for.

Recommending anything in the $1000 range to this guy is a waste of time and a road to disappointment.

If he really wants that much control over a waveform then he can expect to pay extra for it.

C'est toute! C'est complete...

Gary

 

[anotherscott]

What you're describing for the manufacturer is the addition of a "legacy mode" engine that conflicts with the standard ROMpler engine.

Not in the slightest. For example, in your Juno DS, each sound (even if it had only a single velocity layer) had velocity parameters. As I read it (e.g. Juno DS screenshot below), you could choose to make a factory supplied velocity sensitive string sound always play at the same volume no matter how hard you hit the key, and you could just as easily choose to make a factory supplied non-velocity sensitive organ sound play at different volumes depending on how hard you hit the key. No "legacy mode" required... these are simply part of the standard editing parameters. Kross should be similar; MX should be similar if used in conjunction with external editor.

This complicates programming and processing power adding additional expense for a feature that no one is willing to pay extra for.

Again, no, see above.

Recommending anything in the $1000 range to this guy is a waste of time and a road to disappointment.

I recommended some other options that were in the same price range as the MX61 he was looking at, if he'd like something where the sounds could be edited on board instead of having to connect to a computer-based editor. I think they will do what he is asking for just fine. More expensive boards aren't needed to solve the problem at hand, how to have an organ respond to velocity. As he says, he knows it's not realistic, but realism isn't his goal here.

If he really wants that much control over a waveform then he can expect to pay extra for it.

It's entirely unnecessary to get into pricier boards or VA synthesis or waveform manipulation just to accomplish the task at hand.

 

[Soestrada]

Go ahead. Petition all the manufacturers with your Idea,

A VA or Analog synth can do what you want, but your typical ROMpler uses multisamples. There are no multisamples available for bowed string instruments and organs and woodwinds. BECAUSE they don't exist in nature.

Why waste memory recording multisamples for these things when they don't require it in the first place.

ROM costs money too.

If you are looking for that kind of control, model it yourself on an analog synth which doesn't follow ROMpler rules.

What you're describing for the manufacturer is the addition of a "legacy mode" engine that conflicts with the standard ROMpler engine.

This complicates programming and processing power adding additional expense for a feature that no one is willing to pay extra for.

Recommending anything in the $1000 range to this guy is a waste of time and a road to disappointment.

If he really wants that much control over a waveform then he can expect to pay extra for it.

Thanks. Good suggestions but neither seem worth it considering I can pretty much achieve what I want with a $100 PSR keyboard. Just curious that it seems to be either 100 or 2,000, but not as much in the 500~1000 range.

The 'legacy mode' idea wasn't bad though. As it turns out, the Casio CT-s500 (and the s1000V I assume) have legacy GM-series tones. And lo and behold, it has several organs and a harpsichord with active touch response. So that's a problem solved, and I may keep this Casio keyboard after all (just a few other gripes to overcome, mainly the sustain pedal + strings/pads/organs which seem to sustain the sound forever instead of very slowly fading as I'm used to in other models).

[several]

Thanks a whole lot. A lot of good info and suggestions, thank you for taking the time to help.