cherry audio gx-80 Team Test: Cherry Audio GX-80

[Dr Mike Metlay]

On 12/6/2022 at 7:48 PM, EricP1954 said:

Hoping to soon see a preset that mimics the GX-1 effect on the Emerson, Lake & Palmer tune "Pirates." This will indeed be impressive.

If you're talking about the opening modulation effect, this isn't precisely reproducible on a CS-80, as explained earlier in this thread. If the GX-80 has sufficient extra mojo to do this, I would love to hear it!

 

mike

[AnotherScott]

2 hours ago, jerrythek said:

I don’t think that not being able to set the MIDI channel is a big issue, and few, if any users are likely to miss it.  The only case I could think of is a user who runs a very simple setup with only a couple of soft synths open and wants to switch the MIDI channel on their keyboard to select between them. Realistically, that’s not a good way to do things, and you’d be missing out on all the powerful possibilities that using programs like Mainstage, Cantabile, Camelot, Gig Performer, or Plogue Bidul offer.

 

If this is the only VST someone is running, or perhaps one of just two or three as you suggest, then requiring that user to download/install/configure/learn (and probably spend money on) a hosting environment just to prevent your VST from responding to stuff you don't want it to respond to sounds ridiculous to me. Though Cherry isn't the first, I ran into that with Addictive Keys. Is this actually common?

[EricP1954]

18 hours ago, mate stubb said:

Sounds lika a patch challenge. Somebody do the Pirates intro.

I've been in touch with a team member who promised to soon have the patch. Seriously looking forward to that!

[MRBarton]

6 hours ago, Dr Mike Metlay said:

On 12/6/2022 at 6:48 PM, EricP1954 said:

Hoping to soon see a preset that mimics the GX-1 effect on the Emerson, Lake & Palmer tune "Pirates." This will indeed be impressive.

If you're talking about the opening modulation effect, this isn't precisely reproducible on a CS-80, as explained earlier in this thread. If the GX-80 has sufficient extra mojo to do this, I would love to hear it!

 

3 hours ago, EricP1954 said:

22 hours ago, mate stubb said:

Sounds lika a patch challenge. Somebody do the Pirates intro.

I've been in touch with a team member who promised to soon have the patch. Seriously looking forward to that!

 

Challenge accepted.  Here ya go.  I could have worked on it a little longer to get it perfect, but it's close enough, and it is indeed doable on a CS-80.

Preset and demo attached.

 

--mb

Pirates Intro.gx80preset

[DonnieAlan]

Craig Anderton wrote: "I am required by law to include the following warning: this is an addictive substance." 

 

He got that right!  The GX-80 is magnificent in every way!

[jerrythek]

7 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

If this is the only VST someone is running, or perhaps one of just two or three as you suggest, then requiring that user to download/install/configure/learn (and probably spend money on) a hosting environment just to prevent your VST from responding to stuff you don't want it to respond to sounds ridiculous to me. Though Cherry isn't the first, I ran into that with Addictive Keys. Is this actually common?

Hi AnotherScott:

 

Well first off, I don't think this is all that common. This is one of the only VIs I've ever encountered that doesn't offer the ability to do so. 

 

When discussing it with Cherry Audio, when I felt it was really needed, they helped convince me that it's only a likely very small group of people who would find this a big problem. For a user that is only running one, or a couple of VSTs they could use Mutes of their mixer as one form of selection. We did both agree that if it is a bigger need than we both ended up thinking, we'd learn about it in due time.

 

But perhaps I was softening my position too much. I WOULD like to see channel selection possible, I just don't think it's a top issue that needs fixing for this instrument to be a success for the majority of potential users. At least for a Version 1 release. Time will tell.

 

Jerry

[EricP1954]

4 hours ago, MRBarton said:

 

 

Challenge accepted.  Here ya go.  I could have worked on it a little longer to get it perfect, but it's close enough, and it is indeed doable on a CS-80.

Preset and demo attached.

 

--mb

Pirates Intro.gx80preset 7.8 kB · 3 downloads

Oh my God, Mark, you are THE MAN!! Downloaded both the patch and the audio clip. Honestly, I thought you lifted the audio from the record, the clip is that close to the original!

 

Imagine that the original price of a GX-1 in today's dollars is over $300,000 and Cherry Audio cracked the code with a $59.00 piece of INGENIOUS software!

[AnotherScott]

12 hours ago, jerrythek said:

When discussing it with Cherry Audio, when I felt it was really needed, they helped convince me that it's only a likely very small group of people who would find this a big problem.

 

Yeah, but I think lots of software and hardware have features used by a very small percentage of users, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, since different people need different combinations of features. I probably use less than 10% of the capabilities of almost any board I own, but there are probably people out there who care about every one of the 90% of the functions I never use. :-)

 

The development side presumably weighs how widely used a feature may be on one hand vs. possible trade-offs on the other... like, how much programming effort is involved, the likelihood that adding the feature could break something else, or how much complication it adds to the user interface. As someone who, in a previous life, actually did some somewhat low level MIDI programming (compiling some MIDI routines into their own standalone apps back in the early Mac days, a knowledge set that has subsequently completely evaporated from my brain), I have a hard time seeing the likely trade-offs for this one. But maybe something in their internal programming environment makes this more than the no-brainer it would seem to be.

 

12 hours ago, jerrythek said:

For a user that is only running one, or a couple of VSTs they could use Mutes of their mixer as one form of selection.

 

Hmm. Let's look at some really simple scenarios, involving running only one VST, as you mention, using a company whose products I believe you are pretty familiar with...

 

Korg SV1/SV2 has a convenient front panel Local Off button you can use for when you only want to play the external VST sound, and Audio Inputs to send the combined audio output to your amp or FOH. (No mixer needed.) What the SV1/SV2 at first seems to lack, though, is a button that does the reverse of Local Off, a quick way to tell it you only want to hear the internal sound. But actually, there is an easy way... hold the function button and hit a key that represents an alternate MIDI channel that has no external sound assigned. (Function plus the key associated with the VST's assigned MIDI channel will again enable MIDI transmission to the VST when needed.) This would work as long as the VST has channel selection. But of course, if a VST responds to every MIDI channel, this won't work. (I guess that leaves you with operating the computer itself to turn its volume up or down or to load a "silent" patch when necessary... a pretty lame and awkward solution for live performance.)

 

At the other extreme of flexibility, Korg Kronos is a full function 16-zone MIDI controller. And it even has a built-in audio interface so the audio can come back into the board without even bothering to make any separate audio connections. (Again, no mixer.) But, AFAIK, there is simply no way you can stop it from transmitting on the Global channel. So there would seem to be no way to prevent it from triggering an attached VST unless that VST has channel selection. Similarly, if you wanted to create a Kronos combi that included a split between the VST and an internal sound, that would fail, because the keys that are supposed to be only playing the internal sound would also be transmitting on the global channel. (And in that case, even operating the computer directly to silence the VST when desired won't help, because you only want to silence it for a specific range of keys.)

 

To complicate this, you also talked about someone running "a couple of VSTs..." -- both of those scenarios get even worse if you want to add a second VST, because any time you enable that second VST (i.e. by activating its MIDI channel from the SV1/SV2 keyboard, or by putting it in another timbre within a Kronos Combi), that first VST without the channel selection parameter will also always play whenever you are attempting to play only the second VST.

 

Of course, "using programs like Mainstage, Cantabile, Camelot, Gig Performer" is a better way to go. But I would not be surprised if there are plenty of users, especially beginners to the VST world, who use just one or two VSTs and load them up in their standalone implementations. But to actually have a standalone version (as Cherry does) and not allow it to respond to only a single channel basically rules out ever using that version simultaneously with any other VST whatsoever... and even if it is indeed the only VST someone wants to run, there can be significant limitations as my SV1/SV2 and Kronos examples illustrate.

 

Really, I think any board that provides no way to easily switch between sending MIDI and not sending MIDI is going to be a problem, even if you're only running one VST, at least if it that board also has audio input (via line or USB) as many do these days, meaning there's no external mixer with mute controls (and some simple external mixers don't have mute controls anyway, but they at least give you accessible volume controls). And every board will have a problem if you want to run two VSTs (without some intermediate host). So I really don't think this affects so few users. I think it would affect many users who run VSTs without a host or DAW... and even assuming that group is indeed a minority, if it were an insignificant number, there would be little demand for standalone versions in the first place!

 

12 hours ago, jerrythek said:

But perhaps I was softening my position too much. I WOULD like to see channel selection possible, I just don't think it's a top issue that needs fixing for this instrument to be a success for the majority of potential users. At least for a Version 1 release. Time will tell.

 

Yeah, and it's hard to know how many people won't buy it because it doesn't have channel selection... especially since probably most people won't even realize it doesn't have channel selection until after they buy it. ;-) And even then, they may be content to use it even within that limitation, even if they wish that limitation weren't there. There are design decisions that I think suck in most of the keyboards I use, too. ;-)

 

ETA: Also, muting or turning down the volume on the VST when you don't want to use it (whether via a mixer or some other way) is not the same as stopping MIDI from getting TO the VST. Logistically/ergonomically, volume/mute controls are more awkward than hitting something on the keyboard to get the result you want, but also, If the VST is receiving MIDI all the time (even if it is muted so you're not hearing it), then it could conceivably be in an unpredictable state when you turn its volume back up to use it later. Maybe you'll hear the release phase of a previously silent triggered sound, maybe it will have responded to a mod wheel or knob maneuver that was not intended for it, or a Program Change...)

 

[jerrythek]

35 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

 

Yeah, but I think lots of software and hardware have features used by a very small percentage of users, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, since different people need different combinations of features. I probably use less than 10% of the capabilities of almost any board I own, but there are probably people out there who care about every one of the 90% of the functions I never use. 🙂

 

The development side presumably weighs how widely used a feature may be on one hand vs. possible trade-offs on the other... like, how much programming effort is involved, the likelihood that adding the feature could break something else, or how much complication it adds to the user interface. As someone who, in a previous life, actually did some somewhat low level MIDI programming (compiling some MIDI routines into their own standalone apps back in the early Mac days, a knowledge set that has subsequently completely evaporated from my brain), I have a hard time seeing the likely trade-offs for this one. But maybe something in their internal programming environment makes this more than the no-brainer it would seem to be.

 

 

Hmm. Let's look at some really simple scenarios, involving running only one VST, as you mention, using a company whose products I believe you are pretty familiar with...

 

Korg SV1/SV2 has a convenient front panel Local Off button you can use for when you only want to play the external VST sound, and Audio Inputs to send the combined audio output to your amp or FOH. (No mixer needed.) What the SV1/SV2 at first seems to lack, though, is a button that does the reverse of Local Off, a quick way to tell it you only want to hear the internal sound. But actually, there is an easy way... hold the function button and hit a key that represents an alternate MIDI channel that has no external sound assigned. (Function plus the key associated with the VST's assigned MIDI channel will again enable MIDI transmission to the VST when needed.) This would work as long as the VST has channel selection. But of course, if a VST responds to every MIDI channel, this won't work. (I guess that leaves you with operating the computer itself to turn its volume up or down or to load a "silent" patch when necessary... a pretty lame and awkward solution for live performance.)

 

At the other extreme of flexibility, Korg Kronos is a full function 16-zone MIDI controller. And it even has a built-in audio interface so the audio can come back into the board without even bothering to make any separate audio connections. (Again, no mixer.) But, AFAIK, there is simply no way you can stop it from transmitting on the Global channel. So there would seem to be no way to prevent it from triggering an attached VST unless that VST has channel selection. Similarly, if you wanted to create a Kronos combi that included a split between the VST and an internal sound, that would fail, because the keys that are supposed to be only playing the internal sound would also be transmitting on the global channel. (And in that case, even operating the computer directly to silence the VST when desired won't help, because you only want to silence it for a specific range of keys.)

 

To complicate this, you also talked about someone running "a couple of VSTs..." -- both of those scenarios get even worse if you want to add a second VST, because any time you enable that second VST (i.e. by activating its MIDI channel from the SV1/SV2 keyboard, or by putting it in another timbre within a Kronos Combi), that first VST without the channel selection parameter will also always play whenever you are attempting to play only the second VST.

 

Of course, "using programs like Mainstage, Cantabile, Camelot, Gig Performer" is a better way to go. But I would not be surprised if there are plenty of users, especially beginners to the VST world, who use just one or two VSTs and load them up in their standalone implementations. But to actually have a standalone version (as Cherry does) and not allow it to respond to only a single channel basically rules out ever using that version simultaneously with any other VST whatsoever... and even if it is indeed the only VST someone wants to run, there can be significant limitations as my SV1/SV2 and Kronos examples illustrate.

 

Really, I think any board that provides no way to easily switch between sending MIDI and not sending MIDI is going to be a problem, even if you're only running one VST, at least if it that board also has audio input (via line or USB) as many do these days, meaning there's no external mixer with mute controls (and some simple external mixers don't have mute controls anyway, but they at least give you accessible volume controls). And every board will have a problem if you want to run two VSTs (without some intermediate host). So I really don't think this affects so few users. I think it would affect many users who run VSTs without a host or DAW... and even assuming that group is indeed a minority, if it were an insignificant number, there would be little demand for standalone versions in the first place!

 

 

Yeah, and it's hard to know how many people won't buy it because it doesn't have channel selection... especially since probably most people won't even realize it doesn't have channel selection until after they buy it. 😉 And even then, they may be content to use it even within that limitation, even if they wish that limitation weren't there. There are design decisions that I think suck in most of the keyboards I use, too. 😉

 

ETA: Also, muting or turning down the volume on the VST when you don't want to use it (whether via a mixer or some other way) is not the same as stopping MIDI from getting TO the VST. Logistically/ergonomically, volume/mute controls are more awkward than hitting something on the keyboard to get the result you want, but also, If the VST is receiving MIDI all the time (even if it is muted so you're not hearing it), then it could conceivably be in an unpredictable state when you turn its volume back up to use it later. Maybe you'll hear the release phase of a previously silent triggered sound, maybe it will have responded to a mod wheel or knob maneuver that was not intended for it, or a Program Change...)

 

Hi AS:

 

Wow, thanks for such a well-though out rebuttal to the issue. I really don't want to take the position of "defending" my answer further, since I too agree that channelization is a good thing to have. And you've just solidified the case. So it's a great thing that we're having this dialog in the location, since Cherry Audio is paying attention and involved in the thread!

 

I will offer that the issues we discussed had more to do with interface changes, and representation of sounds provided by them to the users. I.E. confusion possibilities when Layers could be channelized. But that is mostly alleviated if they don't offer any Factory programming using that (i.e. Layers having different channels to represent different manuals, pedal etc). At the time of our discussion, all of my comments/requests were about doing that. I think the majority of your scenarios could be dealt with simply if the plug-in itself could be channelized, and not worry about offering it at the Layer level. A much simpler request, I think. Would you agree?

 

Jerry

[AnotherScott]

1 hour ago, jerrythek said:

confusion possibilities when Layers could be channelized. But that is mostly alleviated if they don't offer any Factory programming using that (i.e. Layers having different channels to represent different manuals, pedal etc). ... I think the majority of your scenarios could be dealt with simply if the plug-in itself could be channelized, and not worry about offering it at the Layer level. A much simpler request, I think. Would you agree?

Sure! And it could still default to Omni, so anyone who wants it to work the way it works now is not losing anything. Even if there were some alert that said that taking it out of Omni mode would interfere with... well, something. Which brings me to this...

 

I am a little confused regarding your comment about possible confusion regarding "Layers having different channels to represent different manuals, pedal etc" because I thought you said in an earlier post that it didn't do that anyway, that the way to do that would be to run multiple instances... which is something even today would require using some host, and here we're only talking about how it behaves as a standalone app. (Because I think all the issues I mentioned go away once you put it in a host anyway.) So maybe I misunderstood that, or maybe you were saying that adding that channelization is something they're considering doing in a future update... I may have missed a better explanation elsewhere in the thread.

 

Regardless, I don't think the two things have to be at odds with each other... Some clonewheel VSTs (or iOS apps) do this as well. IIRC, there's at least one where you specify a main MIDI channel which ends up being Upper Manual, and then Lower Manual is automatically assigned to the next channel up, and bass pedals to the channel above that (wrapping around from 16 to 1 if need be)... I'm not sure whether you can override those assignments... while there was another where the user could choose the desired channel for each of these things (or, I think, "none" if, for example, there was no need for a bass pedal channel). I'd prefer manual configuration to automatic fixed assignment of higher channels since the latter could just as easily be unnecessary and end up actually being an impediment to something else you'd like to do.

 

But I'd also add that the type of user who actually wants different CS80/GX1 manuals/pedals responding to different MIDI channels is probably likely to be the kind of advanced user who would be using an app like Mainstage/Cantabile/Camelot/Gig Performer anyway, or at least could more reasonably be expected to find that to be a good solution if recommended. So maybe there's no need to cater to this usage in the standalone version of the VST, if it reduced other complications to leave that ability out of the standalone version, if it ever were to exist in that version anyway...

[jerrythek]

2 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I am a little confused regarding your comment about possible confusion regarding "Layers having different channels to represent different manuals, pedal etc" because I thought you said in an earlier post that it didn't do that anyway, that the way to do that would be to run multiple instances... which is something even today would require using some host, and here we're only talking about how it behaves as a standalone app. (Because I think all the issues I mentioned go away once you put it in a host anyway.) So maybe I misunderstood that, or maybe you were saying that adding that channelization is something they're considering doing in a future update... I may have missed a better explanation elsewhere in the thread.

 

Sorry for the confusion. When I was first investigating the MIDI aspects of the synth, I wanted to be able to channelize the Layers so I could create a dual-manual setup within one instance of the plug-in. That would mean you could do it in either stand-alone or hosted mode. That is the only thing I was discussing with Cherry Audio, and that is what I was writing about in my review and our dialog together. I honestly missed the implications of just the whole instrument as you were discussing. And no, don't infer that they're considering it in a future update. As with any feature/implementation, if enough people speak up about something, of course they would consider it. 

 

2 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

But I'd also add that the type of user who actually wants different CS80/GX1 manuals/pedals responding to different MIDI channels is probably likely to be the kind of advanced user who would be using an app like Mainstage/Cantabile/Camelot/Gig Performer anyway, or at least could more reasonably be expected to find that to be a good solution if recommended. So maybe there's no need to cater to this usage in the standalone version of the VST, if it reduced other complications to leave that ability out of the standalone version, if it ever were to exist in that version anyway...

 

Yes, that's the conclusion we ended up at, and I was writing about.

 

Thanks again, for putting the time in to so clearly explain the stand-alone scenario and benefits of channelization. As a former manufacturer representative, it's great when a user can present their request/argument with such logic and thought behind it.

 

 

 

[Anderton]

2 hours ago, jerrythek said:

Thanks again, for putting the time in to so clearly explain the stand-alone scenario and benefits of channelization. As a former manufacturer representative, it's great when a user can present their request/argument with such logic and thought behind it.

 

Doncha just LOVE interactive reviews?!?

[marc.mdsys]

I can’t deny that the Cherry Audio stuff sound great, having a lot of their plugins.

The question, when a developer introduces a new plugin that supposedly is a replica of a real piece of gear, is of course if it actually sounds like the original.

I suspect not many of us have had the fortune to own either the CS-80 or a GX-1.

The only thing we can go on is what we believe is a sound of either units. The Blade-Runner soundtrack and many of Vangelis records are filled with the CS-80.

I believe Keith Emerson used the GX-1 on the album  ”Love Beach”. So there are some references to compare with.

But the best thing is of course if you own one and can do an A-B comparisson.

Nevertheless, the GX-80 does sound fantastic

 

[Adrian Lee]

Hi there to this esteemed panel and other contributors.

Full disclaimer, I'm an endorsee of  Cherry's products and happen to be one of the lucky ducks who sat behind a GX1 a few times at RAK studios in London back in the 80s. I'm also (ain't we all) a lover of the CS-80 and, back in the day when I was closely associated with Roland in Europe, Dave Bristow and I became friends and spent a good amount of time marveling at and jamming on that wonderful instrument, which I would rent in on the QT to sessions so as not to wind up my friends at Roland too much. The JP4 was still 2 years away when the CS-80 arrived and I suspect there would be some agreement that it's intellectually, interactively, emotionally, a very different machine. As were all the polysynths of that generation, whether they be from Sequential, Oberheim, Moog etc. The CS-80 stood apart.
Anyway, enough rambling.

I wanted to chime in on this discussion because I feel the GX-80 is a monumentally important synthesizer, for all the reasons which have been set out previously here. It's the only plugin synthesizer I have played since that first encounter with a CS-80 (and one does play this thing... it's such an instrument) which got to me on a level beyond 'hey that's great', or 'yep, sounds like the original'.  This is not to devalue all the wonderful digital tools we have at our disposal these days and, heaven knows, they're keeping more than a few of us out of the osteopath's office, but simply to point out the obvious....Yamaha created instruments which really spoke to us on a different level, and I have no hesitation in saying that this 59 buck realization, this superb weaving of GX-1 features into the CS-80's architecture, speaks to me on that level. I'm in love. Shameless hussy. 

Cherry do produce a few synths featuring Poly AT - I retain an Elka MK88 in my setup purely for that facility, but it was really notable how effective the pseudo Poly AT in the GX-80 is. On that note, I want to commend a young fella over at the Cantabile forum where a GX-80 thread, predictably, flowered. During the ongoing discussion, the pseudo poly AT got some attention and I suggested that it would be wonderful to be able to employ such an approach on other poly AT equipped synths. Would you believe it, he put together a script in Reaper's ReaJS which one can insert between a keyboard offering standard channel pressure and the plugin of your choice.
This little 80 lines of code, as Gabriel describes it, brings a similar dimension of expression to, for example, Cherry's Sine and Dreamsynth that really ups their creative output IMO, to those folks who may not have access to poly AT or MPE. It's likely that such a midi utility exists elsewhere, but I ain't found it, nor was I looking for it until the GX-80 sparked the addict.
I think Gabriel has joined up here, and I cajoled him to allow me to upload it to this forum. 

midipressuretopoly3.zip

[GabrielPas64]

26 minutes ago, Adrian Lee said:

On that note, I want to commend a young fella over at the Cantabile forum where a GX-80 thread, predictably, flowered. During the ongoing discussion, the pseudo poly AT got some attention and I suggested that it would be wonderful to be able to employ such an approach on other poly AT equipped synths. Would you believe it, he put together a script in Reaper's ReaJS which one can insert between a keyboard offering standard channel pressure and the plugin of your choice.
This little 80 lines of code, as Gabriel describes it, brings a similar dimension of expression to, for example, Cherry's Sine and Dreamsynth that really ups their creative output IMO, to those folks who may not have access to poly AT or MPE. It's likely that such a midi utility exists elsewhere, but I ain't found it, nor was I looking for it until the GX-80 sparked the addict.
I think Gabriel has joined up here, and I cajoled him to allow me to upload it to this forum. 

midipressuretopoly3.zip 973 B · 0 downloads

 

Hi everyone!

 

just a few lines to say "hi!" to everyone (well...I already said that...didn't I?).

The little script I put together is a very easy one. I spent an entire afternoon on it, just because i had never used JSFX and ReaJS before.
What is really great, IMO, is this idea of pseudo-poly-AT. It's the sort of Columbus' egg one would have liked to think about first...but I am glad anyway that someone did think about it. My script is a sort of tribute to Cherry Audio ingenuity (though the script probably lacks all the nuances of their implementation).
The script must be loaded into ReaJS and the MIDI output from your controller has to pass through it before going to the VST plugin (e.g. Cherry Audio Sines) which should recognize poly-AT. In short, that's what the script does:

 

• if a NOTE ON is received, the note is "latched", a poly-AT=0 is sent for that note (as a reset), the NOTE ON message is forwarded to the midi output (to be received, e.g., by Sines); before all that, however, if the “Reset Held Notes” option has been selected, the poly-AT is set to zero for the previously latched note which as a consequences looses the modulation;
• if a NOTE OFF is received, a poly-AT=0 is sent for that note; moreover, if the released note is the one latched for poly-AT we reset the latched value  (it is set to -1); the  NOTE OFF is forwarded to the midi output
• this is of course the most important action: if a CHANNEL PRESSURE message is received and the latched note is not =-1, a poly-AT message is sent for that note (with the value of the pressure taken from the received message) instead of the channel pressure message (which is not transmitted).

That's all. I will probably spend the rest of my life lurking and reading all the interesting info in this forum, whose existence I ignored until now. Life's too short! Speaking of which...I thank Adrian for bringing me here and for calling me a "young fella". The fact is...I probably deceived him with my profile picture on the Cantabile forum, which dates back to 20 years ago (see nickname for year of birth).

 

 

[mate stubb]

Welcome Gabriel and Adrian! If 64 doesn't refer to 1864, you ARE a youngster to some of us!

[jerrythek]

More MIDI Musings

 

One More Thing

There’s one more aspect of the MIDI Learn feature of the GX-80 that I really appreciate. You can see on the top right of the field, a parameter that says: New Mapping Type. It can be set to Global, which is the default, or Preset.

 

 

Global means that every sound will have the same mappings. Preset means that the mappings you define are only used by the sound you are currently working with. So sounds can be saved with different/custom mappings per sound. And finally, even if you are working within a Global mapping, you can see that each parameter has a switch to change that mapping to Preset, so you can work with a mostly global setup, with only a few differences for a given sound.

 

 

This is a very well thought out design and I applaud Cherry Audio for the flexibility.

 

My Learning Philosophy

There are two schools of thought when mapping controllers to a soft synth. The first is to recreate all, or as many of the available parameters to your keyboard’s control surface, so you can programs sounds, and interact with the synth just as if you had access to its full control panel. In that situation, you’ll want all your controllers to move the full range, and likely be a Linear response. Map enough controls (no easy task with the abundance of controls on the CS-80!) and your synth is ready to be tweaked and controlled fully. 

 

Another school of thought is to set up your controls to be able to interact with a given sound, and modulate, bend and shape it expressively and musically. No doubt you are already familiar with this if you have a synth that offers a few assignable knobs/sliders that have been pre-programmed by the manufacturer for each sound. Be sure to check out the Factory presets for the GX-80 for this aspect: a number of the programmers did include some controller assignments that they wanted to have for a specific sound. Likewise, some soft synths (like the Arturia CS-80) offer Macro knobs, which are pre-programmed per sound to create cool variations for each preset. 

 

With Cherry Audio’s implementation here you get both opportunities, but I’d like to see one improvement. I’d like to be able to save and recall the Global mapping, so I could be freer to set up my per Patch performance settings using the primary controllers of my choice, and then reload my full Global programming setup when I want to program new sounds. Currently, I’m likely to reassign some Global controller mappings when I want to shape my Preset, and after saving that, I’ve lost one (or more) of my Global mappings that I wanted for my full programming setup. The less controllers you have on your keyboard the more important this becomes. This would also allow you to save Global mappings for different keyboards you have, or different combinations of keyboards and additional control surfaces. Hopefully they’ll consider it for a future update: I’ve seen this feature already in a number of soft synths.

 

A Few More Before I Go

So what haven’t I covered?

 

The GX-80 can respond to MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression). It isn’t enabled on startup, but if you have a device capable of generating it, you turn it on in the Interface Tab of the Settings window I discussed earlier. I’ll leave it to my colleagues who have an MPE-capable device to cover it in use.

 

The CS-80 was way ahead of its time (1976!) in that it had a both velocity and polyphonic aftertouch capable keyboard. If you have a poly-aftertouch keyboard you’re in luck to take advantage of this highly expressive form of performance. But if you don’t, the GX-80 has a cool work-around. A setting called Last will route the channel (mono) aftertouch your keyboard generates only to the last played note of the currently held notes. So with a little practice, if you slightly roll your chord voicing, or add a note to your held notes, you can get your modulation/expression to only sound on that single note of your chord. It’s a cool “MacGyver” of a solution, and I am impressed that they thought of it. 

[StickMan393]

On 12/8/2022 at 5:14 PM, MRBarton said:

 

 

Challenge accepted.  Here ya go.  I could have worked on it a little longer to get it perfect, but it's close enough, and it is indeed doable on a CS-80.

Preset and demo attached.

 

--mb

Pirates Intro.gx80preset 7.8 kB · 7 downloads

Holy crap. That's perfect enough, and beats my attempt on the Arturia CS80V some years ago. Kudos!

[EricP1954]

Forgive me if this sounds too much like a newbie question. It might be a subject of interest. I perused the Cherry Audio forum on the GX-80 and a member reported that he had some trouble with program change instructions and some midi commands not working. Another member replied that VST3 versions of many plugins have the same behavior of ignoring instructions that are sent through the DAW, and that the VST2 versions work better. The same member also suggested using the DLL version. Aren't VST2 and VST3 plugins incompatible if used within the same DAW project? Were those comments true about VST3 version of the GX-80?

[Anderton]

8 hours ago, jerrythek said:

The GX-80 can respond to MPE (MIDI Polyphonic Expression). It isn’t enabled on startup, but if you have a device capable of generating it, you turn it on in the Interface Tab of the Settings window I discussed earlier. I’ll leave it to my colleagues who have an MPE-capable device to cover it in use.

 

First of all, great comments about MIDI. Of all the things you mentioned, probably my favorite is that MIDI Learn centralizes min/max and curve settings. Every synth should have that.

 

At to MPE, I'm still in the "checking it out" stage but I will say that so far, the LinnStrument seems like it was designed specifically for how the GX-80 responds to poly aftertouch. It's smooth, predictable, and expressive. I've been trying to get my Ensoniq TS-10 to behave similarly, but it just doesn't. Maybe it's age, maybe it's operator error and I'm missing some parameter somewhere, but I don't think so. Of course the LinnStrument is a more modern implementation, so I assume Cherry Audio was testing MPE with similarly modern devices.

[Adrian Lee]

On 11/22/2022 at 6:55 PM, David Emm said:

Suggestions on How to Control the Ribbon Controller?

I managed to grab a Kurzweil expressionmate way back when I first got the Arturia CS-80v.  It’s still hangin in there…. just. In combination with the Poly AT on my Elka MK88, it’s a reasonable CS-80 experience. 

I was looking for a more controlled approach to using the ribbon controller and I found it in my old m-audio axiom. The 8 pads on that thing are pressure sensitive. I have each  pair calibrated +/- as follows: A tone, a 4th, a  5th, an octave. 

As we know, only held notes respond to the ribbon. This allows the pads, in combination with sustain, to create what we might call  ‘pedal steel’ effects. 
Having just the low note of a ringing chord swoop down an octave is a beautiful thing! As long as fingers are off the keys when the pad is released, the pitch doesn’t spring back. 
It’s also a cool way to get those quick trills and fall offs. 
 

Adrian 

[Al Coda]

17 hours ago, EricP1954 said:

reported that he had some trouble with program change instructions and some midi commands not working. Another member replied that VST3 versions of many plugins have the same behavior of ignoring instructions that are sent through the DAW, and that the VST2 versions work better. The same member also suggested using the DLL version. Aren't VST2 and VST3 plugins incompatible if used within the same DAW project? Were those comments true about VST3 version of the GX-80?

 

In gerneral and NOT Cherry Audio specific:

 

VST3 plugins won´t support MIDI PrgCHange commands,- never ever !

It´s a shame,- blame Steinberg on this !

 

VST2 work better w/ the disadvantage loosing "advantages" of VST3.

The question is, "what do I need more ?".

And, there are also (many) VST2 plugins not responding to MIDI PrgChange commands.

P.ex. NI Massiv X VST2 doesn´t,- I installed it on my laptop yesterday,- found VST2 in x64 plugins folder and VST3 in VST3 plugins folder.

Unfortunately both version behave the same.

 

This confirms it´s up to the manufacturer implementing "features" or not.

 

VST2 and VST3 plugins are "compatible in the same DAW project".

OTOH, it´s not matter of the project at all,- instead, some (or most) DAW applications don´t recognize the same plugin existing in vstplugims folders in VST2 and VST3 format.

To do so,- DAW apps usually want to see different plugin IDs, but some manufacturers run the VST2 and VST3 plugin w/ the same plugin ID.

So, only one of these will be listed.

Others, like Studio One Pro, prefer to pick the VST3 version.

 

Currently I´m becoming a CLAP format plugins fan.

I tried 12 CLAP plugins in Reaper v6.7.1 and all respond top MIDI PrgChange commands except the freeware plugin "Odin2".

The overall performance of CLAP plugins in Reaper is very good and even Cockos CLAP implementation in Reaper is their 1st step, - just the beginning and by far not complete a.t.m..

But this will be good times for MIDI (2.0), MPE and hopefully will kick Steini´s (ehhhm ... Yamaha´s) a## for their VST3 arrogance.

 

B.t.w.,- w/ Peter from Sonic Projects, I´ve found a way working around VST3´s lack of MIDI PrgChange abilities.

In the pack of "Insert Piz MIDI" plugins (32 and 64Bit !), there´s one named "MidiConverter3".

You put it into a MIDI track as the very 1st plugin, set input to MIDI PrgCh, assign a free MIDI CC# at it´s output,- and when it´s hopefully available,- use "MIDI Learn" feature of the plugin for assignment of that MIDI CC to program number switching.

Works like a charme w/ Sonic Projects OP-X Pro-II v1.3.0 which now is VST3 only.

B.t.w.,- OP-X Pro-II VST2 64Bit didn´t respond to MIDI PrgChanges too,- only the OP-X Pro-II VST2 32Bit version did.

 

 

A.C.

 

 

[Al Coda]

On 12/10/2022 at 5:15 PM, GabrielPas64 said:

Hi everyone!

 

just a few lines to say "hi!" to everyone (well...I already said that...didn't I?).

The little script I put together is a very easy one. I spent an entire afternoon on it, just because i had never used JSFX and ReaJS before.

 

 

Hi Gabriel !

 

This looks great,- thx a lot !

I´m 67 and never tried coding a (JS-) script at all,- so hat´s off !

 

Your script,- is it a JS plugin already in your zip-file for download, or is it necessary to DIY a JS-plugin from this script?

If the latter,- "how to ?"

Is there any advise out there how to make a JS plugin from scripts ?

 

thx again,-

 

 

A.C.

 

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, Al Coda said:

VST3 plugins won´t support MIDI PrgCHange commands,- never ever !

It´s a shame,- blame Steinberg on this !

 

I can't understand why the decision was made not to allow program changes with VST3. A definite WTF? moment.

[AnotherScott]

On 12/10/2022 at 10:23 AM, Adrian Lee said:

The JP4 was still 2 years away when the CS-80 arrived and I suspect there would be some agreement that it's intellectually, interactively, emotionally, a very different machine. As were all the polysynths of that generation, whether they be from Sequential, Oberheim, Moog etc. The CS-80 stood apart.

 

It is interesting how different the poly synths of that generation are... CS80, Prophet 5, Polymoog, Oberheim's system built out of stacked SEMs. No one had established how one "should" approach designing a poly synth, and all came at it so differently, whether based on what they'd already done elsewhere or trying something entirely new, within the tech and cost constraints if the time (not that any of these were truly "affordable" by most at the time).

 

On 12/10/2022 at 10:23 AM, Adrian Lee said:

Cherry do produce a few synths featuring Poly AT - I retain an Elka MK88 in my setup purely for that facility, but it was really notable how effective the pseudo Poly AT in the GX-80 is.

 

As I mentioned in another related thread, the first time I saw something like this implemented was in the full keyboard version of the Arturia Origin. It seemed so sensible and do-able, I was surprised to not see similar things popping up elsewhere.

 

13 hours ago, Anderton said:

so far, the LinnStrument seems like it was designed specifically for how the GX-80 responds to poly aftertouch. It's smooth, predictable, and expressive. I've been trying to get my Ensoniq TS-10 to behave similarly, but it just doesn't. Maybe it's age, maybe it's operator error and I'm missing some parameter somewhere, but I don't think so. Of course the LinnStrument is a more modern implementation, so I assume Cherry Audio was testing MPE with similarly modern devices.

 

I wonder how people are finding the Hydrasynths for this. Anyone try it yet?

 

4 hours ago, Adrian Lee said:

I managed to grab a Kurzweil expressionmate way back when I first got the Arturia CS-80v.  It’s still hangin in there…. just. In combination with the Poly AT on my Elka MK88, it’s a reasonable CS-80 experience. 
...

As we know, only held notes respond to the ribbon. {etc.}

 

I wonder how effective at duplicating CS80 behaviors the optional ribbon (for PC4, etc.) is... I don't know if it is functionally the same as the expresisonmate.

 

56 minutes ago, Al Coda said:

In gerneral and NOT Cherry Audio specific:

 

VST3 plugins won´t support MIDI PrgCHange commands,- never ever !

It´s a shame,- blame Steinberg on this !

 

For anyone following this aspect of the thread, good info about VST/VST3, program changes, etc., at https://forums.musicplayer.com/topic/183727-vst2-vs-vst3/

 

[Al Coda]

11 minutes ago, Anderton said:

I can't understand why the decision was made not to allow program changes with VST3. A definite WTF? moment.

 

"Steinberg"/ Yamaha think these aren´t necessary anymore.

They possibly follow the route software is for studio production and for the live giggin´ pro, there are the Yamaha hardware workstation instruments (and when software is in use, there are the "standards" like MainStage, Cantabile and GigPerformer, being able to deal with without using MIDI PrgChanges for each device being loaded urgently.

Well, in the early 80s, Yamaha was so much involved in MIDI standard and now this.

Like you, I cannot understand at all, last but not least because I grew up w/ MIDI and still recognize it as the most important tool for any serious keynoardist, arranger and composer.

 

 

A.C.

[GabrielPas64]

2 hours ago, Al Coda said:

 

 

Hi Gabriel !

 

This looks great,- thx a lot !

I´m 67 and never tried coding a (JS-) script at all,- so hat´s off !

 

Your script,- is it a JS plugin already in your zip-file for download, or is it necessary to DIY a JS-plugin from this script?

If the latter,- "how to ?"

Is there any advise out there how to make a JS plugin from scripts ?

 

thx again,-

 

 

A.C.

 

 

Hi A.C.,

 

thank you for your interest in my little script. In the meantime I have included a txt file with some explanation in the zip archive (attached here). In short, to use the script you  must load it into the ReaJS VST plugin (which is part of the ReaPlugs free package: https://www.reaper.fm/reaplugs/) and you have to route the MIDI output from your controller through ReaJS into the VST Instrument, which in turn should be able to use poly-AT. The script "tells" ReaJS how to behave with the incoming MIDI messages.

 

To make ReaJS "see" the script, the file midipressuretopoly (included in the zip file) must be placed into the midi folder of ReaJS (for instance path_to_your_installed_vst_plugins\ReaPlugs\JS\Effects\midi). Then one clicks the "load" button in ReaJS to load the script with Load->midi->midipressuretopoly.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Gabriel

 

midipressuretopoly3.zip

[SKentish]

I’ve had a Hydrasynth Deluxe for a few days and been using it with the GX-80 and the poly AT and ribbon work perfectly in combination. It’s an absolute joy to play them both. The quality of music tech we have now is wonderful. 
 

I’m still in a state of shock that we have a GX-1 (and CS-80) of this quality to play. It’s been a dream since I was 10 years old and first saw Keith Emerson playing it in the Fanfare video. He and that imposing instrument Inspired me to take up keyboards…I’ve tried to programme GX sounds on many synths for 45 years and nothing could ever capture its tone and the controller effects. 

 

I downloaded Mr Barton’s simply incredible Pirates preset yesterday and I don’t mind admitting to having a tear in my eye playing it with the aftertouch controlling the ring mod speed and depth just like Keith did. It’s just a dream come true. It’s identical. I’ve got a rare copy of the original ELP book with the transcript of Pirates so being able to relearn it on this synth is going to be so much fun. Unfortunately the book only commences when the main brass theme comes in. Would be great to get a transcript of the intro and Emerson’s initial rhythmic section just prior to the orchestra joining.

 

it would also be great to get more of the Emerson GX-1 sounds in due course. I’ll try and do some but the quality of Mark’s Pirates one is mind blowing. I’m hoping other more gifted programmers than I will share some more.

 

Thanks for this Dream Machine. It’s brilliant.

 

Kind regards 

Steve

[MRBarton]

51 minutes ago, SKentish said:

I’ve had a Hydrasynth Deluxe for a few days and been using it with the GX-80 and the poly AT and ribbon work perfectly in combination. It’s an absolute joy to play them both. The quality of music tech we have now is wonderful. 
 

I’m still in a state of shock that we have a GX-1 (and CS-80) of this quality to play. It’s been a dream since I was 10 years old and first saw Keith Emerson playing it in the Fanfare video. He and that imposing instrument Inspired me to take up keyboards…I’ve tried to programme GX sounds on many synths for 45 years and nothing could ever capture its tone and the controller effects. 

 

I downloaded Mr Barton’s simply incredible Pirates preset yesterday and I don’t mind admitting to having a tear in my eye playing it with the aftertouch controlling the ring mod speed and depth just like Keith did. It’s just a dream come true. It’s identical. I’ve got a rare copy of the original ELP book with the transcript of Pirates so being able to relearn it on this synth is going to be so much fun. Unfortunately the book only commences when the main brass theme comes in. Would be great to get a transcript of the intro and Emerson’s initial rhythmic section just prior to the orchestra joining.

 

it would also be great to get more of the Emerson GX-1 sounds in due course. I’ll try and do some but the quality of Mark’s Pirates one is mind blowing. I’m hoping other more gifted programmers than I will share some more.

 

Thanks for this Dream Machine. It’s brilliant.

 

Kind regards 

Steve

 

Hi Steve,

 

You might have gotten a tear in your eye playing the Pirates preset, but I also got a tear in my eye reading your wonderful comments.  It's feedback like yours that makes this monumental effort we all went through worthwhile.

 

As is my bent, a tiny correction here.  The modulation is not accomplished with the RING MODULATOR.  It is the SUB OSCILLATOR working the voice filters with TOUCH RESPONSE -- SUB OSC AFTER increasing the SPEED and VCF depth.

 

The Pirates intro that uses this sound is easy enough to figure out and the rest of the intro is just a repeated (and slightly arpeggiated) C F Bb C chord (top note is middle-C).  I used to play Pirates all the way through pretty well, but I've forgotten practically all of it and my chops have kinda fallen away too.  Too much typing and not enough playing.  I can still manage a pretty mean Tarkus though.

 

I've attached all the presets I used to make my demo recording which is among the others at the bottom of https://cherryaudio.com/products/gx-80

 

Once again, thanks for your great feedback and rock on!

 

--mb

 

 

MRB.zip

[midinut]

I was able to get a Hydrasynth Deluxe last week (thanks to my AMAZING wife - early Xmas), and all I can say is "F*ckn' Wow!" As Steve noted. It is almost the perfect fit and  companion to the GX-80 (albeit rather pricey as just a controller). Good thing I already had it on my wish list. It is also an incredible synth in itself! I am about to turn 64 and was able to play the CS-80 at Gary Leuenberger's in San Francisco way back in early 1980. They also has a Prophet 5 and the DX1 and GS1 which were also out of my budget that I longed for (or lusted after). I later bought a used CS60 while stationed in Hawaii and loved it to death. I'd like to say I hated to get rid of it, but the singer in the band I was playing in when I left Hawaii made sure he ghosted me before I left and almost all my gear at the time was in his practice studio. Anyway, sad story I know, but hopefully Karma will/has come around for him.

 

Back on topic. I have not tried setting up any MIDI learn for the controls on the HS yet, but should I run out - I've also got an Arturia KeyLab with a ton of buttons and sliders. I'll be delving into getting the HS to control the GX80 more in the next few days. But if what I've seen so far is any indicator (other than the MIDI programs changes not working), I am SOOOO impressed. with both the GX-80 AND the Hydrasynth Deluxe! Glen Darcey and his crew have done an amazing job on the synth itself, but also created a controller for the GX-80 that is as close to having the tactile "feel" of sitting in front of one. More to follow in a few days (if, like all the reviewers here seem to mention) once you start you don't end up losing hours just playing the damn thing!