Montage by Yamaha

[EvilDragon]

I like the single Performance mode thing. No way to mess your combis when you change programs that way. It's better in the long run.

[chilly7]

No samples in any keyboard or softsynth are 192KHz anyway, nor can you hear anything at its Nyquist Frequency (96KHz), this is just a long standing fiction on Chilly's part. All you get is larger CPU load and larger files.

That is a different topic can be 192Khz be better or not then 44.1.
But i am just saying they lair about 192Khz sample rate and many people who knows nothing about that will be cought by this marketing trick( lair) .
Because the truth is that yes maybe technicaly it can output 192Khz but what they do not say is that the native sample rate is probably at 44.1 so they will just put 44.1Khz to 192Khz.

The same story is with what they say 24 bit output.
The truth might be that yes thechnicaly it may output 24 bit but the native sample rate might be lower then 24 bit. So they will put less bits in to 24 bit output.

And unfortionaly almost awry manufactors uses marketing tricks (lair).

[aron]

>Performance mode thing. No way to mess your combis when you change programs that way. It's better in the long run.

There are advantages but let me ask you, what keyboards do you personally use that are like this?

It doesn't have to be this way, the PX-5S stores local copies in the performance. Several other older synthesizers also stored copies in the edit buffers for performances

[apex]

>Performance mode thing. No way to mess your combis when you change programs that way. It's better in the long run.

There are advantages but let me ask you, what keyboards do you personally use that are like this?

It doesn't have to be this way, the PX-5S stores local copies in the performance. Several other older synthesizers also stored schoolers copies in the edit buffers for performances.

What's the harm in it though?

[SanderXpander]

No samples in any keyboard or softsynth are 192KHz anyway, nor can you hear anything at its Nyquist Frequency (96KHz), this is just a long standing fiction on Chilly's part. All you get is larger CPU load and larger files.

That is a different topic can be 192Khz be better or not then 44.1.
But i am just saying they lair about 192Khz sample rate and many people who knows nothing about that will be cought by this marketing trick( lair) .
Because the truth is that yes maybe technicaly it can output 192Khz but what they do not say is that the native sample rate is probably at 44.1 so they will just put 44.1Khz to 192Khz.

The same story is with what they say 24 bit output.
The truth might be that yes thechnicaly it may output 24 bit but the native sample rate might be lower then 24 bit. So they will put less bits in to 24 bit output.

And unfortionaly almost awry manufactors uses marketing tricks (lair).

Isn't this the same thing you're doing? Adding fictional "quality" even though there is no extra information in the extra bits or samples?
They're not lying, but you're right to call BS about the worth. Even though technically the internal FX might operate at 64-bit 192KHz, there is nothing worthwhile about recording the Montage (or most sources) at 192KHz.

[aron]

>What's the harm in it though?

That's why I asked if he had a keyboard like this. I do, do you?
If you have one like this, there are advantages and disadvantages. Yes, all things being equal if you have lots and lots of space to "share" performances and voices - no problem. But if it's limited there are tradeoffs. I'm not talking about the Montage - no one has one now, but I have a keyboard that is like this and the other user has a Jupiter that does this. Until you have a keyboard that does this, you realize the tradeoffs.

I already posted a few examples of some tradeoffs. There are more.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I actually have a keyboard that is like this and I am saying that it's not all lovely and solves all problems. It solves one problem and adds others.

[Bachus]

>I hate this trend of "performance" type banks instead of single sounds

The obvious problem is that if you want to play single voices only, you eat up performance slots.

Nah man. Just put several of your favorite single voices in one performance. Use the scenes to mute and Unmute the different voices and BAM... Homemade set list mode. Or an entire set sitting within one performance.

Except that there are no single voices anymore... You also cant call them from midi....


The whole montage is severely limmited in its usefullness in anyway Yamaha does not intend it to be used...


In the end, its the ultimate one trick pony...

[Kevin Nolan]

The original poster doesn't really do justice to the Montage in their review.

Firstly, while you perform through Performances, it provides for great flexibility, without the overwhelming confusion of the Jupiter 80 Registrations setup (hugely powerful but very complicated because there's an interim layer called Livesets that burdens the programming).


In Montage, a Performance is simply a grouping of up to 16 Parts. If you only want one Part, only assign one and you'll play only one sound! But the Performance is quite traditional otherwise in that it allows you to build Multi-sound Performances based on layering, keyboard splits, velocity layers or arpeggio assignments. All very straight forward. And - there are 1900 of them - pretty generous. Coupled to SoundMondo, this is a VERY sophisticated way of managing Performances.

Where this is potentially extraordinarily sophisticated (and potentially cumbersome in the same way as Kurzweil VAST is amazing, but tricky and cumbersome) is that a Part can itself be up to 8 elements - where an element is a single synthesizer sound (AWM Waveform - Filter- Env - Amp.. or FM-X Algorithm - Filter- Amp ...)

For example - it is possible to layer up to 8 different FM sounds in one Part, and 16 FM Parts to one Performance. In the extreme you could layer 128 FM-X sounds on one note!

And the original poster forgets to mention that these are 8 oscillator Algorithms - so anything from layering 128 FM Programs to using an FM Algorithm of 8 oscillators in parallel and no FM implies up to 1024 oscillators playing - on one note!

So the scope is staggering beyond comprehension.

And then there's 5.6 GB of inbuilt PCM waveforms - that is impressive by any standards.

Couple to that the capability of live input Envelope Follower affecting ANY synth parameter you want, Motion Sequences arguably as capable as wave sequencing the Super Knob offering similar Scene Morphing as on the AN1x - and I think we're in for the trip of a lifetime sound creation and design wise.

I don't suppose the original poster spent any time on any of that??


Coupled to a stated development program through the life of Montage by Yamaha, meaning there will be new features either through updates or new models; and I think you have to conclude this is a pretty earnest instrument.

I'm convinced

[SanderXpander]

I hate to disappoint you Kevin, but a "part" is either eight AWM2 elements OR up to eight operators of the FM-X engine. I really don't see why you would ever need 1024 voices on one key anyway.

[burningbusch]

A few things:

The 5.6GB of ROM does sound impressive, but remember the entry level Korg Krome has 3.8GB (most used for the piano). I wonder how much of the Yamaha ROM is dedicated to the new each-note-sampled, multi velocity layered piano.

The 192Khz sample rate is available when using USB. At 44.1K, you get 16 channels stereo (great) but as you go up in sample rate you go down in channels, which is expected.

I believe the free Bosendorfer is loaded into user space. Realistically, most users will want this, likely leaving maybe 1GB of user sampling area remaining.

Busch.

[Kevin Nolan]

I hate to disappoint you Kevin, but a "part" is either eight AWM2 elements OR up to eight operators of the FM-X engine. I really don't see why you would ever need 1024 voices on one key anyway.

Of course a Part is either AWM or FM - that's obvious - there's no mixing of synth engines in that regard (as there is with the SY77 and 99) - we've already covered that in other posts.

And - nobody needs any of this! But tell me - how many strings do you need in an orchestra? How many synthesizers did Vangelis need for Bladerunner? How many times did Tomita Layer the RS202 to create his strings? How many times does ENYA sing each choral line (answer - 400 times)??

You mean to say - that because you don't see a need - that you legislate on who needs what in terms of number of sound sources?? You can't see a need, so there isn't one? Is that your claim? Really??


In any case - the actual point is - the 'scope' of options is any combination of one to 1024 oscillators in any synthesized way you want. I do accept however that I got that wrong - it's a maximum of 128 oscillators on one note. But there's scope for imagination and creativity in that quite vast, extraordinary and unique domain. That's the point!

[aron]

Of all the things listed, none are beyond comprehension or unexpected, except this snippet:

"stated development program"

I've been trying to find this. This alone - an upgradeable Montage would be a welcome change. When I mean upgradeable I mean something like the amazing additions we saw with the Kronos.

The live mutes alone made the Kronos something special.

Can you point us to where Yamaha states this? I looked at the NAMM blurb from Yamaha but that wasn't stated.

[Bachus]

A few things:

The 5.6GB of ROM does sound impressive, but remember the entry level Korg Krome has 3.8GB (most used for the piano). I wonder how much of the Yamaha ROM is dedicated to the new each-note-sampled, multi velocity layered piano.

The 192Khz sample rate is available when using USB. At 44.1K, you get 16 channels stereo (great) but as you go up in sample rate you go down in channels, which is expected.

I believe the free Bosendorfer is loaded into user space. Realistically, most users will want this, likely leaving maybe 1GB of user sampling area remaining.

Busch.

Only supporting USB2 limits the bandwith of USB for Audio streaming by quite a few...


There is so many contradictions in this key....

Yes we are having full audio interface functionallity over USB, and then only having USB 2

No we do not have a sequencer, people want to use their DAWS for sequencing, and then not Having the DAW controll mode of the Motif

Saying have the best acoustic sound, and then not adding SCM and EAM technollogy because it would take away from the edditing abbilities of such sounds.. But who cares about very deep edditing capabillities of realistic sounds like Frandpiano's , Organs, reeds, winds... people just want them to be as realistic as possible and have several flavors of them

Not being able to use midi over USB and the physical midi port at the same time.. yet still promotting the instrument as a Master controller, which ofcourse also conflicts with tehe unavailable DAW controll mode

Freedom of creation, and then taking away the most creative PAttern mode from people, which was the perfect scratchpad for creating performances.



The whole instrument is just one big contradiction... Tough, it sounds great, but does it really sound better then a Kronos?

[aron]

Lots of good points. You would think that Yamaha would move the Tyros and other tech into their flagship synthesizer, but maybe the departments are separated.... Some of the Tyros sounds are outstanding.

Maybe the Tyros should become the live performance/music production keyboard (replacing the Motif) and the Montage line would be some whacky experiment into synthesis?

[SanderXpander]

I hate to disappoint you Kevin, but a "part" is either eight AWM2 elements OR up to eight operators of the FM-X engine. I really don't see why you would ever need 1024 voices on one key anyway.

Of course a Part is either AWM or FM - that's obvious - there's no mixing of synth engines in that regard (as there is with the SY77 and 99) - we've already covered that in other posts.

And - nobody needs any of this! But tell me - how many strings do you need in an orchestra? How many synthesizers did Vangelis need for Bladerunner? How many times did Tomita Layer the RS202 to create his strings? How many times does ENYA sing each choral line (answer - 400 times)??

You mean to say - that because you don't see a need - that you legislate on who needs what in terms of number of sound sources?? You can't see a need, so there isn't one? Is that your claim? Really??


In any case - the actual point is - the 'scope' of options is any combination of one to 1024 oscillators in any synthesized way you want. I do accept however that I got that wrong - it's a maximum of 128 oscillators on one note. But there's scope for imagination and creativity in that quite vast, extraordinary and unique domain. That's the point!

Maybe it's just the way we argue but somehow we always seem to get off on the wrong foot. I'm not "legislating" what anyone needs at all or "claiming" anything and I strongly object to you putting words in my mouth. If you feel that you do need 1024 oscillators on one note, more power to you. I can't imagine many useful sounds that would honestly need a 1024 oscillators to make. This is a bizarre discussion anyway. I'm all for musical exploration and new sounds. But if I made a synth tomorrow that could put 4096 oscillators on one note it's not more musically useful to me than one that can put, say, 128 on one note. You can do whatever you want. You can also do like Enya and record your one oscillator 400 times.