need for larger velocity scales, 0-128 to small

[Zeroesque]

...127 STEPS, which means several thousand combinations of them (velocity+duration, velocity+release velocity, relative velocity in trills, etc)

I respectfully disagree, simply based on the mathematical fact that the function x*y, where x is a positive integer between 1 and 127 (repesenting the velocity value) will always give you 127 distinct values. This is regardless from y being a single number or a complex expression (e.g. x*(y+i/j)). Hence, x is limiting the resolution of this 'curve'. I dropped the idea of highlighting that in your earlier post, but now I have to point that out.

Where did Ozy say that y was constant? Not that I can understand much of his posts, of course...

Also, try the TruePianos velocity control with your Yamaha:
http://www.truepianos.com/images/screen ... os_adv.png
It does wonders for getting dynamics out of different controller keyboards.

No, I have no financial benefit to recommending this software. I just really like it and wish more instruments had this level of control, and I'm not seeing many examples in this thread that actually implement some of the ideas being brought forward. This is one such example.

[jemkeys25]

I know I don't want any external software, I want everything in the kronos.

[synthjoe]

I'd be happy to be certain of what you guess.

Some research among manufracturers' documents would be undoubtedly interesting.

Me too, I'd be happier to know for sure. But not even Stephen Kay elaborated on that question. Hope someone will though, some day.

Where did Ozy say that y was constant? Not that I can understand much of his posts, of course...

He didn't. He wrote few posts earlier on page 8:

Did you do the math, and calculate how many variation you can get by applying a 1/127 velocity paramenter to a 1/127 envelope paramenter which drives a 1/127 filter cutoff parameter, with a 1/127 resonance paramenter?

Do you now what the math formula is, right?

it's 127*127*127*127 = 260.144.641

It is true that the highest possible value is 260.144.641, but not all values between 0 and 260.144.641 are possible because all these parameters are either a function of velocity (in which case they'll move 'hand in hand' with the velocity value as a multiplier) or not (in which case they are constant from the aspect of our experiment). So the resulting granularity will be 127 steps rather than 260.144.641, unfortunately.

I like TruePianos by the look. Do they have a trial version? I'm not a big fan of VSTi's, however... Kronos looks promising in terms of the engine.

[peter_schwartz]

No, you can't equate MIDI velocity steps to dB.

Actually I think you can because the volume level increases with velocity relate directly to loudness of a piano.

Sorry Kevin, but no, you can't. First of all...

1) which piano are we talking about? A studio upright? A 6' grand? 7' grand? 9' grand? Which maker? My point here is that there is no standard for piano by which gradations of loudness are measured. Similarly, there are no standards for calibrating loudness on dB meters for which a piano of any kind is used.

2) what you and I perceive as volume increases in acoustic instruments are not just volume increases. They're increases in volume AND harmonic content (brightness). The ear, being more sensitive to higher frequencies than lower frequencies, will translate (in your mind) a brighter sound (with increased high frequency content) as "a louder sound". So if we played a low C on (any) piano at mF and then again at forte, you and I might agree that the forte note sounds 2x louder. But on a meter it wouldn't show that. It might be 1.5 times louder. That's because the extra brightness produced by striking the note harder gives us the perception that the sound has increased in volume by 2x. But if taking about dB's, it hasn't increased by 2x.

3) The resolution of MIDI velocity itself has zero -- I repeat, zero -- bearing on the dynamic range of any sound. If you're interested to know why, post back and I'll explain.

[jemkeys25]

[peter_schwartz]

OK, so you're going . Just curious, which of my three points tickled your funny bone the most?

[Scott]

The method you describe, of generating a curve after the velocities have been turned into MIDI values, would be far more limiting. It could decrease resolution in some areas (as in your example) but it could not increase resolution in others.

Totally agree.

I don't say i LIKE it. I say that I'm afraid that's how it's done in current keyboards.

You seem to think it's done one way, I seem to think it's done another, and unfortunately, neither of us seems to have the necessary background to provide any definitive evidence that we're correct. Maybe someone else can help.

In NO commercial keyboard reference guide did I find any reference to "stretched" keyboard curves (i.e.: increased resolution [better than 1/127] at, say, low and mid levels, lower resolution [lower than 1/127] at higher levels).

In no commercial keyboard reference guide have I found reference to what you describe as an alternative.

However, I have seen many keyboard reference guides with illustrations of different selectable velocity curves. And they are always that... curves. If it worked they way you think it does, I don't think you would see all those smooth curves. I mean, if MIDI velocities 5 through 15 are all mapped to 10, and all other MIDI velocities are similarly mapped to other values that are equal to or greater than one (keeping in mind that, as you agree, this method you postulate only allows you to decrease resolution in some places, without permitting offsetting increases in resolution elsewhere), then I think you would see deviations approaching stair steps in those diagrams.

[ozy]

If it worked they way you think it does, I don't think you would see all those smooth curves.

WHEN exactly, on user guides or leaflets,

did you see VA filter curves showing STEPS?

The simple facts that the only available info is number-less approximate charts...

... says something.

[peter_schwartz]

If you're dealing with MIDI, you're never, ever, dealing with smooth curves. Absolutely everything is stepped. So if you see illustrations of smooth curves, as ozy said, they're just representations of the actual, stair-stepped "curves".

Even HD velocity will be stepped, but it will more closely approximate a smooth curve because it's got more points to help define it. Still, it's going to be steps.

Everything in MIDI is quantized. Note positions recorded "unquantized" in a DAW are in fact quantized as well (to the smallest resolution of the DAW). And all digital audio signals are quantized (except they're smoothed by the filters in DACs and by your speakers which act as low pass filters).

In short, if it's digital, it's not a smooth curve.

[Scott]

If you're dealing with MIDI, you're never, ever, dealing with smooth curves. Absolutely everything is stepped.

I understand that, I realize that things are "smoothed" in the illustrations. My thought was just that these smoothed curves wouldn't be so arc-like if areas of decreased resolution couldn't be offset with other areas of increased resolution. They would be more "squiggly," if you will. But... I'm not sure.

[peter_schwartz]

I'm not sure

Be sure that any smooth curve represented in a manual (or elsewhere) for a piece of digital equipment is an artist's representation of a stepped curve. It's actually better that they do this (IMO) because you can't get the gist of what the curve is supposed to accomplish if it looks like a jagged line. It's just like you don't think in jagged, quantized dynamics when you're playing. But if the instrument you're playing on is digital, that's what's happening every single step of the way.

In general, MIDI is an interpretation of your musical performance on a digital instrument. That performance gets quantized and transmitted to an instrument (or plug) that is going to re-quantize certain aspects of your playing (such as user-definable velocity curve mapping or pressure mapping). Then, the sound engines that create the sound create stair-stepped versions of every single aspect of the sound. That then gets smoothed at some point (via DACs and/or your speakers) so that it doesn't sound jagged. But from your performance to the sound you hear, it's all a bunch of stair-stepped calculations and interpretations.

[Scott]

I'm not sure

Be sure that any smooth curve represented in a manual (or elsewhere) for a piece of digital equipment is an artist's representation of a stepped curve

As I said, I understand that part. It's hard to describe this in text instead of pictures. But a smoothed representation of points on a line can provide a smooth arc-like curve, or something more zig-zaggy, like a series of S shapes with numerous plateaus, that's the distinction I'm trying to describe.

[peter_schwartz]

I'm not sure

Be sure that any smooth curve represented in a manual (or elsewhere) for a piece of digital equipment is an artist's representation of a stepped curve

As I said, I understand that part. It's hard to describe this in text instead of pictures. But a smoothed representation of points on a line can provide a smooth arc-like curve, or something more zig-zaggy, like a series of S shapes with numerous plateaus, that's the distinction I'm trying to describe.

I think I understand that you understand. But what I'm not getting is that you're describing smooth, arc-like curves depicted for digital instruments. What I'm trying to say is that those are simply artist's renditions, and that there's no possible way that they can represent what's actually going on in the digital domain.

What I said above about digital (stuff) being quantized or stair-stepped is "how it is". But curves are fiction. And most of the time they're good and useful fiction, but they're still fiction.

And if I'm still not understanding then maybe it's because it's 7:20 AM and I haven't been to sleep yet, but there it izzzzzz....

-=PS=-

[Scott]

I think I have an actual answer here, instead of all this guessing.

On page 372 of the Korg M3 parameter guide, it shows that the M3, at least, supports both kinds of velocity mapping. A velocity curve can be applied either PreMIDI or PostMIDI, that is one of the programmable parameters.

Since Korg supports that on the M3, I assume they will support that on the Kronos.

You can download the M3 parameter guide from the Korg web site for a more complete description and diagrams.

p.s. -- it seems to me that PreMIDI would make the most sense when playing the unit from the internal keyboard; but the lesser PostMIDI approach would be useful when driving the unit from an external keyboard (or sequencer) over MIDI

[StephenKay]

I think I have an actual answer here, instead of all this guessing.

On page 372 of the Korg M3 parameter guide, it shows that the M3, at least, supports both kinds of velocity mapping. A velocity curve can be applied either PreMIDI or PostMIDI, that is one of the programmable parameters.

Since Korg supports that on the M3, I assume they will support that on the Kronos.

This was discussed about 5 or 6 pages ago....