开云体育

Hello,

Working w the QY70 and am stumped on an XG FX question:

I've been trying to figure out if there's a difference beyond the preset parameters in alternate bank FX (e.g. Chorus 1 vs 2 vs 3 vs 4). If I get under the hood w Sysex and set all the parameters, I can't tell much of a difference between them. This necessarily includes setting all the underlying XG params the FX UI doesn't display.

I've gone through the XG specs, the QY manual, and even other XG module list books. I found a single detail on differences: Phaser 1 and 2 provide alternate ranges for the 'Stage' parameter. According to page 12 of the QY70 List Book, Phaser 1 spans 6-10 stages, while Phaser 2 spans 3-5 stages.

The SW1000X list book has block diagrams for the effects, but the core of the algorithm is black boxed w/o details. Beyond that, the diagrams only show the overall algorithm's filters, feedback paths, early reflections, and mixers.

This question goes for Reverb 1 vs 2 vs 3, and all the alternate FX that constitute the bank variations for XG effects. Unfortunately, I haven't yet had time to go through each permutation and A/B them by ear.

Was hoping someone had a clue to why these variations exist when you can tweak them to sound the same by adjusting values under the hood.

Is the purpose to provide access to a few preset Sysex only FX params for users working entirely through the FX UI? Did they figure most users would simply take them to be fundamentally different algorithms?

Or is there an actual difference between the numbered effects?

Thanks, J

Hi,

My assumption is they’re fundamentally just presets… Probably the most common parameters are set and then all the other ones are provided if you wish to tweak the presets to make slightly different effects. ?Also since sysex changes can be recorded and played back so I imagine Yamaha added them with the idea that people might do different types of automated/recorded sweeps of various parameters. ? Of course I don’t know what Yamaha engineers were thinking or if this was just more or less marketing to be able to specify a certain number of presets for chorus, ?reverb, and effects but often times even completely different instruments are just small changes to other instruments in terms of XG params (or General Midi for that matter)

Of course, Even small changes in a parameter can make a pretty profound effect on the output sound (provided the Audio stream and monitors are really high quality). However, I certainly am no audiophile so I probably could not discern a lot of the subtle differences… Not saying this is the actual reason in your case, just putting it out there as one possibility.

I hope that makes sense. ?

Of course, it’s all just my humble opinion.

Cheers,
Eric

--

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

Thanks for your response, Eric.

Last night, I put aside some time to test the numbered effects. I set all parameters with Sysex, and A/B'ed Variation slots against the ones for Reverb and Chorus. They sound exactly the same. I think it's safe to say e.g. Chorus 1/2/3/4 all use the same algorithm.

I liked your take on the marketing angle. To someone who isn't going to mess with Sysex, it does sound like there are 4 different Choruses, etc. I think your suggestion to view them as presets is exactly right.

I was originally wondering if there was any reason to use numbered alternates if you're setting all params by Sysex, and it seems there isn't.

However, Phaser 1 and 2 do sound significantly different, due to the different ranges of stages mentioned in the manual. But that seems to be the only time you can get into a different sonic space by using an alternate effect.

I dislike the presets provided, especially for reverbs (waaaay too long R times). Seems like I won't be missing out on anything by picking any given one and tweaking everything under the hood.

Thanks! J

Another subtle FX difference: Phaser 2 has a parameter for "LFO Phase Difference," which Phaser 1 lacks. Found that in the QY70 List Book, which seems to be as thorough as it is detailed.

Looks like absence of other caveats to other FX params in the docs indicates each numbered preset is the same algorithm under the hood. Was ambiguous to me before, but this makes sense now.

J