Intelligent/Floating Splits on the FA-06 (and others)

[llatham]

The other thread brought this up - Mainstage with floating split points.

 

Well, most synths don't do this. You get a fixed split point. My Roland FA-06 allows you many many splits and layers (across all 16 parts!) but none of them are "intelligent" or "floating".

 

But I just realized there's a "cheat" for this - and it's something that's probably available on many synths:

 

The FA allows you to, on a per part basis, set the upper and lower range for the velocity that a Part will respond to.

 

So if I put a piano on part 1 and set the velocity limit from 0-63, and then put strings on part 2 and set the VL from 64-127, (and turn both sounds on to be played by the keyboard) if I play lightly, I get a piano sound (and other velocity offsets and volume adjustments can balance the volume with the strings) and if I play it strongly I get a strings sound.

 

So I can play a string chord in multiple octaves and hold it with the pedal, and then lightly play and play piano notes over that - even the same pitches as are being held by the strings (because I'd have to hit the key harder to make a string note replay).

 

You could even overlap the VL in the center range and have "intelligent layers".

 

I know some synths will even let you set velocity limits on a patch per patch basis so you could actually get really complex if you had both.

 

Obviously, this is only great if you can really control how hard you play either each hand or even finger - and if you're holding keys with one of the parts you can't really play the other sound over it without cancelling one and re-striking at the right velocity to get the other.

 

But you can absolutely "cross sounds" this way.

 

Or, IOW, rather than defining the sound by keyboard range, you're defining it by how you strike the keys.

 

You get your two sounds at once, and once can cross above/below the other if you can control the playing strength - don't even have to play stepwise!

 

[EscapeRocks]

Yes that is a cool feature.

 

Even my PX5S can do that. They have some orchestra stage setting where playing less then a specified velocity give you the strings, then hits harder brings in horn stabs, or Tympani hits.

[Morizzle]

Good thinking, I also tried that once on the FA-06. I didn't find it a satisfactory solution, because for me it's really hard to play soft on the keyboard of the 06. I played a 08 once and liked the control way better.

 

When programming studio sets on the FA 06, I nowadays use the expression pedal a lot (have one sound react to the pedal and another not etc...)

[marczellm]

Inside the patch architecture of the Rolands (at least the PCM sound engine), you do have the option to crossfade different multisamples across the keyboard with user-specified split points and crossfade ranges.

[AnotherScott]

Good thinking, I also tried that once on the FA-06. I didn't find it a satisfactory solution, because for me it's really hard to play soft on the keyboard of the 06. I played a 08 once and liked the control way better.

I similarly did a patch like this on my MOX6 years ago, where I had to cover more sounds than I had room for on the keys, and rapid patch switching was not going to be practical (with the frequent shifting among sounds, and needing to be able to hold sounds through a change). Between keeping track of where the four sounds I needed were, and how hard I needed to hit keys to get to some of them, playing the song became more of a puzzle solving exercise than a musical performance.

 

There was the additional issue of dealing with the dynamic range of the "layered" sounds, i.e. you had to figure out, not just how hard or soft to hit to get the sound you wanted (i.e. to avoid hitting a key too hard or soft and triggering the wrong sample), but also how to not "overshoot" that threshold, which could result in the lower velocity sound being too quiet or the higher velocity sound being too loud. Though I suppose editing the dynamic response of the underlying sounds themselves could have addressed that, if I had taken it that far. I agree that the dynamic control of unweighted action further complicates this... it would presumably be easier on a weighted action, where you have better control.

 

I also realized that, if we needed to do the song again months later, I would not instantly remember how to play it on this patch. So while I do see where it might be useful for some people in some situations, ultimately I decided this just was not a way I wanted to go. At the time, the MOX6 was over an 88 slab that didn't have any of the sonic capabilities I needed for the song, but in hindsight, a better approach would probably have been to run a MIDI cable and set up the patch so that some of the needed MOX sounds would be triggered by some portion of the 88.

 

Of course, if the dual sounds are actually related, then it can make sense in a more natural way, i.e. a brass sound that has falls when you hit very hard, etc.

[PianoMan51]

For those of you who are thinking about the wonder of MainStage floating splits, I beg to differ.

 

I spent weeks and weeks using the floating split for bass vs. 'whatever'. It is so wonderful to be able to play bass lines up in the alto range, or take the right hand voice down into the baritone range. The problem is that on a regular basis, especially when I was getting into the music, I would break the algorithm. Hit a note that was expected to be a piano, but get a bass note. Groove=broken.

 

Eventually just turned it off. Too bad.

[J. Dan]

Up until this last post, I was wondering to myself how well this could actually work. Sounds great in theory but seems to have the capacity to go horribly wrong.

[AnotherScott]

For those of you who are thinking about the wonder of MainStage floating splits, I beg to differ.

 

I spent weeks and weeks using the floating split for bass vs. 'whatever'. It is so wonderful to be able to play bass lines up in the alto range, or take the right hand voice down into the baritone range. The problem is that on a regular basis, especially when I was getting into the music, I would break the algorithm. Hit a note that was expected to be a piano, but get a bass note. Groove=broken.

 

Eventually just turned it off. Too bad.

...which is why a board you're splitting for LH bass really should have 73+ keys (going down at least to a low E). Otherwise I find it's always a compromise one way or another.

[Reezekeys]

I like this challenge so I'm going to see what I can work up in Bidule. I use a 61-key controller and do LH bass once in a while, and there are times I wish the split point would move! I also have a preset with a synth lead sound in the upper part of the keyboard and it would be great to have the split point adjust on the fly to allow me more room to comp with my left hand when I need to.

 

Bidule requires the user to devise the algorithm and figure out how to wire its modules together to implement it meaning that you're putting on a programmer's hat (without actually needing to know a programming language, although it helps). Maybe there's something wrong with me but I enjoy this! The payoff is a virtual rig with all your controller's buttons, sliders, knobs and pads doing exactly what you want.

[Markay]

Up until this last post, I was wondering to myself how well this could actually work. Sounds great in theory but seems to have the capacity to go horribly wrong.

Not if you follow the rules.

 

If the previous note was played in the upper split and the next note is played below the split point, but within the range you have defined below the split as the floating range for the upper split, then it will sound the sound assigned for the upper split.

 

Also you can transpose each split by octave so the pitch sounded is correct irrespective of where it is played on the keybed.

All described in the MainStage manual, might be worth reading it.

[Dr88s]

Between keeping track of where the four sounds I needed were, and how hard I needed to hit keys to get to some of them, playing the song became more of a puzzle solving exercise than a musical performance.

 

Similar experience here. I played around with 'velocity switching' between the various sounds (never more than two per key) but could never reliably ensure that I got the correct sound 100% of the time when I was playing with the whole band kicking in and emotion kicking in. Eventually I found it too distracting and looked for another alternative. The most reliable method I was able to find was to set one to trigger at 128 and the other 0-127.

[Adam Burgess]

The Kronos (and probably a few others) can do velocity crossfades between timbres/OSCs and a lot of synths allow velocity switching. Same as the OP, I find it a bit hit and miss.

 

As for MainStage, I think you should still set up splits per song/patch as you normally would: i.e. What's the lowest note I really need the piano to go to (or vice-versa for the bass in this example)? Don't always use the default middle C or whatever it may be.

 

 

[Markay]

As for MainStage, I think you should still set up splits per song/patch as you normally would: i.e. What's the lowest note I really need the piano to go to (or vice-versa for the bass in this example)? Don't always use the default middle C or whatever it may be.

 

 

There isn't a default in MainStage, you split wherever needed and as many times as needed, and adjust the pitch of each split to sound whatever pitch or octave is required.

[PianoMan51]

Up until this last post, I was wondering to myself how well this could actually work. Sounds great in theory but seems to have the capacity to go horribly wrong.

Not if you follow the rules.

 

If the previous note was played in the upper split and the next note is played below the split point, but within the range you have defined below the split as the floating range for the upper split, then it will sound the sound assigned for the upper split.

 

Also you can transpose each split by octave so the pitch sounded is correct irrespective of where it is played on the keybed.

All described in the MainStage manual, might be worth reading it.

 

I am a manual reader, and I do understand that there is an algorithm. And if I were playing exactly the same parts for a performance, then I could use the floating split. But when I'm making up parts as I play, which is virtually all the time, it's a whole lot easier to remember a fixed split point than to have to work within the algorithm while devising bass and piano parts.

 

To be fair, the algorithm works 19 times out of 20 for me, but having a bass note boink out during a piano solo just throws me off my stride.

[AnotherScott]

As for MainStage, I think you should still set up splits per song/patch as you normally would: i.e. What's the lowest note I really need the piano to go to (or vice-versa for the bass in this example)?

On my MOX61 (which I have unfortunately used to play LH bass with just 61 keys), I've wished for an "octave lock" button. The front panel octave buttons are convenient, but there's no way to restrict which sides of a split they apply to. I want to keep my LH bass just where it is, but be able to octave-switch the RH strings/brass/whatever on the fly.

 

One workaround for that (which I also did on some Korg) was to double-up patch select buttons... there are two rows of buttons for selecting sounds, and I'd put two string sounds one under the other, so the top-row string sound had the strings an octave higher than the bottom-row string sound. But of course, then you're cutting down the total number of single-button-selectable sounds available to you at any given time.

 

Another issue you bring up there is that I generally don't "set up splits per song." There are lots of songs where I need, say, a bass/string split, and I want to use the same one for all of them, I'm not inclined to do a dozen variations with different split points for songs that need more of one or the other. And even if I did, there's still the issue that, for a given song, the range of the bass and the range of the piano could be such that the two don't fit within 61 keys, so the idea of the floating split could be helpful. But there's still no substitute for having more keys.

 

BTW, what I have found best for playing LH bass on the MOX is to play the Performance with the EDIT function engaged. Then I have bass on the left (which never glitches during patch changes), and I can instantly select from 16 RH sounds using the patch select button.

[DanL]

I do some velocity switching in layers on my FA08, where a stronger synth sound layers on top of a softer pad when you hit it harder.

[Markay]

Implicit in concept of determining the split point and the boundaries of the floating range per split is the notion that you know, when you set it up, what the requirements are to play a specific piece.

 

For improvisation where you could be playing different notes in a different sequence in each split every time yes, floating splits are not yet up to, or suited to, anticipating your next move.

[Sven Golly]

Are we really saying that velocity switching is "new" and "amazing" and "surprising" in 2017?

 

Wow.

[lerber3]

Would this be cool? A pair of wireless wrist-bands which detect hand/finger is being used to play each note, regardless of where on keyboard. LH = bass, RH = lead... or to pick a solo synth voice based on first finger used on a phrase? ...or for playing into transcription software to correctly distribute notes between staves?

[fourthtunz]

Hey so the Fa-06 allows you to do more than one split? So you could have 3 or more sounds/2 splits?

I had the fa-07 and I think I had a song with 3 splits so I could have 4 sounds.

thank you!

[harmonizer]

The FA-06/07/08 allow you to define a Studio Set having 16 parts, with a separately specified lower and upper range for each of those 16 parts.

 

You can also define a customer scale for each of the 16 parts. I have used this to put in place fine tuning for different pitches within a part, shifting certain notes up 50 cents and others down 50 cents, and then added a separate coarse tuning for the entire part. Came in useful when triggering chords by pressing a single key with my foot on a MIDI footpedal controller (while both hands were busy playing a sax), because the 16 parts was not enough.

 

What I did was probably not normal, but it does show there is a lot of flexibility in the split capability of an FA-06/07/08.

[Baldwin Funster]

The FA-06/07/08 allow you to define a Studio Set having 16 parts, with a separately specified lower and upper range for each of those 16 parts.

 

You can also define a customer scale for each of the 16 parts. I have used this to put in place fine tuning for different pitches within a part, shifting certain notes up 50 cents and others down 50 cents, and then added a separate coarse tuning for the entire part. Came in useful when triggering chords by pressing a single key with my foot on a MIDI footpedal controller (while both hands were busy playing a sax), because the 16 parts was not enough.

 

What I did was probably not normal, but it does show there is a lot of flexibility in the split capability of an FA-06/07/08.

You can do all that on the roland DS too.

[fourthtunz]

The FA-06/07/08 allow you to define a Studio Set having 16 parts, with a separately specified lower and upper range for each of those 16 parts.

 

You can also define a customer scale for each of the 16 parts. I have used this to put in place fine tuning for different pitches within a part, shifting certain notes up 50 cents and others down 50 cents, and then added a separate coarse tuning for the entire part. Came in useful when triggering chords by pressing a single key with my foot on a MIDI footpedal controller (while both hands were busy playing a sax), because the 16 parts was not enough.

 

What I did was probably not normal, but it does show there is a lot of flexibility in the split capability of an FA-06/07/08.

You can do all that on the roland DS too.

 

I have the ds-61 which only allows one split, the fa-06 allows more than one correct?

I like the sounds of the fa series better as well as chord memory.

thanks!

[AnotherScott]

I have the ds-61 which only allows one split, the fa-06 allows more than one correct?

DS and FA are identical in this respect... you can split/layer up to 16 sounds, with as many different split points among them as you want (because each sound has its own definable key range).

 

I like the sounds of the fa series better

There's no right answer there, that's always subjective, but each has some "technical" advantages over the other, sonically. The FA has the "SuperNATURAL" VA synth, and a handful of SuperNATURAL acoustic tones as well. OTOH, the balance of the sounds come from the XV-5080, whereas the sound set of the DS is not as old as that.

[fourthtunz]

I have the ds-61 which only allows one split, the fa-06 allows more than one correct?

DS and FA are identical in this respect... you can split/layer up to 16 sounds, with as many different split points among them as you want (because each sound has its own definable key range).

 

I like the sounds of the fa series better

There's no right answer there, that's always subjective, but each has some "technical" advantages over the other, sonically. The FA has the "SuperNATURAL" VA synth, and a handful of SuperNATURAL acoustic tones as well. OTOH, the balance of the sounds come from the XV-5080, whereas the sound set of the DS is not as old as that.

 

On my ds-61 it seems to have just upper and lower split. Is there a menu function, edit etc to get more splits?

Also the fa has chord memory which I used to find handy as I'm not a real keyboardist, just a dumb bass player

Also the sounds just seem to be bigger with the fa series, I really like its fake electric guitar sound as well!

Just getting back into adding keys with bass in my band..now that bands are playing out again! Hurrah!

Thanks for being patient with my stupid questions!

[Baldwin Funster]

Hit the Patch/Perform button. Hit enter. Scroll up and over to user. Scroll down to an available INIT PERFORM. Hit menu. Hit edit. Hit performance edit. You'll see a list of 16 parts all default to 88 stage grand.

 

That's where it's done.

[fourthtunz]

Hit the Patch/Perform button. Hit enter. Scroll up and over to user. Scroll down to an available INIT PERFORM. Hit menu. Hit edit. Hit performance edit. You'll see a list of 16 parts all default to 88 stage grand.

 

That's where it's done.

Cool! I was asking around on gearslutz and a guy that has the fa-06 said only 2 so I wanted to check before buying one.

I knew I could do it on the fa-07 and it was super easy.

thanks for the info!

[AnotherScott]

In case it may help, here's a summary of FA/DS differences I'd posted elsewhere:

 

FA OVER DS:

* SuperNatural sounds... VA synth engine, tonewheel organ engine, piano, EPs, clav, basses, acoustic guitar, ensemble strings, drums

* built-in full sequencer

* ability to load two expansion sets at once (instead of only one)

* Stereo Sub Out to send selected sounds to alternate external processing/locations

* Large color display

* Can put MFX effects on up to 16 sounds at once (instead of 3)... though unlike the DS, you can't put more than one on a sound a a time

* Functions as a 16-zone MIDI controller

* more trigger/select pads (though their functions between the two boards are not identical)

* ability to assign samples to pads and trigger them simultaneously (overlapping) - though I think you may be able to do this on DS by assigning pads to keys that have custom samples assigned to them?

* ability to save many more user sounds/combinations... 512 User Studio Sets vs. 128 Performances; 896 tones (split among different categories) vs. 256 patches

 

DS OVER FA:

* ability to load custom samples as full keyboard-playable instruments (this can also be used as a way to partially get around being only able to load one expansion instead of two)

* ability to change performances (equivalent of FA's Studio Sets) without your previous sound cutting out

* ability to put 2 or 3 insert (MFX) effects on a single sound (but you cannot put MFX on 16 sounds at once like you can on the FA... 3 is the max if you assign one MFX to each. Effects on 16 channels is more important for sequencing than live performance, so it's a difference that makes sense since the FA has the 16 part sequencer and the DS doesn't.)

* when playing live with a 2-way split, you can easily adjust the volumes and octaves of each part on the fly with the dedicated front panel sliders and the octave buttons (it's great to be able to quickly switch the octave of your RH sound when playing LH bass, for example... not so easy on the FA)

* vocal processor (i.e. pitch correction)

* you may find the DS basic sound set preferable. Apart from the SuperNatural sounds, the FA sounds are from the XV-5080, while the Juno DS sounds are newer (Fantom and up). Plus axial even gives DS owners a way to add the FA's XV-5080 sounds if you need them, but you can't add the DS/Fantom sounds to the FA.

* DS has a pattern sequencer (of course FA has its own sequencer functions, but each can be better for different things)

* Roland has a Mac/PC editor/librarian for DS

* DS has a front panel MFX control

* numeric entry works more smoothly, it repurposes the Favorites/Selection buttons (instead of the pads as on the FA), so it doesn't get in the way of your using the pads for other purposes; and as soon as you finish entering a number, the buttons revert to their previous function, whereas on the FA, once you use the pads for numbers, you have to use a multi-button sequence to manually switch out to get back to your normal pad function.

[Baldwin Funster]

The only thing I really think the DS needs from the FA is the organ engine. Although I've never read anybody really praising it.

[fourthtunz]

In case it may help, here's a summary of FA/DS differences I'd posted elsewhere:

 

FA OVER DS:

* SuperNatural sounds... VA synth engine, tonewheel organ engine, piano, EPs, clav, basses, acoustic guitar, ensemble strings, drums

* built-in full sequencer

* ability to load two expansion sets at once (instead of only one)

* Stereo Sub Out to send selected sounds to alternate external processing/locations

* Large color display

* Can put MFX effects on up to 16 sounds at once (instead of 3)... though unlike the DS, you can't put more than one on a sound a a time

* Functions as a 16-zone MIDI controller

* more trigger/select pads (though their functions between the two boards are not identical)

* ability to assign samples to pads and trigger them simultaneously (overlapping) - though I think you may be able to do this on DS by assigning pads to keys that have custom samples assigned to them?

* ability to save many more user sounds/combinations... 512 User Studio Sets vs. 128 Performances; 896 tones (split among different categories) vs. 256 patches

 

DS OVER FA:

* ability to load custom samples as full keyboard-playable instruments (this can also be used as a way to partially get around being only able to load one expansion instead of two)

* ability to change performances (equivalent of FA's Studio Sets) without your previous sound cutting out

* ability to put 2 or 3 insert (MFX) effects on a single sound (but you cannot put MFX on 16 sounds at once like you can on the FA... 3 is the max if you assign one MFX to each. Effects on 16 channels is more important for sequencing than live performance, so it's a difference that makes sense since the FA has the 16 part sequencer and the DS doesn't.)

* when playing live with a 2-way split, you can easily adjust the volumes and octaves of each part on the fly with the dedicated front panel sliders and the octave buttons (it's great to be able to quickly switch the octave of your RH sound when playing LH bass, for example... not so easy on the FA)

* vocal processor (i.e. pitch correction)

* you may find the DS basic sound set preferable. Apart from the SuperNatural sounds, the FA sounds are from the XV-5080, while the Juno DS sounds are newer (Fantom and up). Plus axial even gives DS owners a way to add the FA's XV-5080 sounds if you need them, but you can't add the DS/Fantom sounds to the FA.

* DS has a pattern sequencer (of course FA has its own sequencer functions, but each can be better for different things)

* Roland has a Mac/PC editor/librarian for DS

* DS has a front panel MFX control

* numeric entry works more smoothly, it repurposes the Favorites/Selection buttons (instead of the pads as on the FA), so it doesn't get in the way of your using the pads for other purposes; and as soon as you finish entering a number, the buttons revert to their previous function, whereas on the FA, once you use the pads for numbers, you have to use a multi-button sequence to manually switch out to get back to your normal pad function.

 

Another Scott thank you for taking the time with such a detailed comparison! I still have the ds-61 and at one time had it and the fa-07 but ended

up like the fa better..seemed like it was easier to get the sounds I wanted and the pads were handy for having sounds ready when playing live.

I liked the keybed a little better on the fa...the keys are bit longer I think?

Maybe I just need to learn the Ds better?

Thanks again I really appreciate it!