Montage by Yamaha

[SanderXpander]

The problem is that Yamaha software isn't written for Intel architecture. It's not trivial to port over their code.

But then Korg took that step with the Oasys. a huge investment that gave them a huge advancement

Since the Motif XS, Yamaha had 10 years to take that same step, but they didnt... result, they cant compete with Korg where it comes to fullfledged workstatiosn with multiple soundengines .... and so they stepped back

Yes that was my point. There's a reason Korg took so much time to produce Kronos. The Oasys generation, they were basically guinea pigs. It's an amazing board and was so even more when it first came out. But they were the test generation. Where are Yamaha's tests?

[Derek Cook]

The problem is that Yamaha software isn't written for Intel architecture. It's not trivial to port over their code.

That depends on how it is written of course. If written in a language like C with abstracted hardware, it would be easy(ish). If hard coded to the platform, then I agree it would be a bit more of a challenge.

Example: I write my synth librarians in Java and as a result they target Windows, Linux and OS X all from the same code base because Java has abstracted the hardware.

I'm not a coder but from what I understand, that is one reason Java is so slow. I would expect Yamaha, using custom audio DSPs needing super low lstency performance, to use very hardware specific code.

But even for more advanced code there can be far reaching consequences, like the OSX switch to Intel wasn't trivial and still represents a schism for older apps.

Java might not be the best example for where you want absolute performance (compiled code will always be faster); I was using it as an example of writing in a way that you abstract the model of what you are running from away from the hardware as much as you can. I.e. do not hit the hardware directly - go through a virtualisation layer - I assume Korg must have done that with some of their soft synths which are running on different platforms. I could be wrong, mind.

[Derek Cook]

Why do you want Yamaha to do a Kronos, when Kronos already exists?

Aren't the differences important? Don't get the desire for exact replica's of the same concept by multiple companies.

I mean the concept of having 9 of Yamaha's best classic synth engines in one integrated package, not an exact replica of the Kronos.
Let's see

• Good AWM Engine (yes, in Montage)
• DX7 FM (yes in Montage in a compatibility mode)
• SY AFM (missing in action in Montage)
• FS1r FM (half in the Montage
• CS80 (nope)
• CP70/80 (nope)
• VL1/VL70m (nope)
• AN1x (nope)
• FDSP (nope not a sound engine in its own right, but never seen since the

That's what I meant by "Yamaha doing a Kronos". The OASYS/Kronos has amply proved that there is a market for such a multi-engined synth.

Nothing wrong in wanting that, surely, despite the odds of it ever happening being negligible (like Line 6 ever doing a left handed JTV).

While you'll get no argument from me in wanting to see all of those amazing synthesisers reincarnated, I think you're a tad disengenuous to the 'weight' and finesse of Montage - and are dismissing it's many extra / unique features.

For example - it does have AFM synthesis (just not RCM); and while it obviously isn't a CP80, it's pianos seem at the upper echelon deliverable from samples. Similarly, while it doesn't have AN1x, it has superlative AWM synthesis which has, essentially, a VA engine - and - using FM oscillators in parallel, makes the FM engine a VA engine too (as does MOD-7 by the way). to boot, calling it half an FS1R is quite disingenuous - the bit-depth, quality of signal path, quality of DACs and sheer polyphony (4 times that of FS1R) means that this is the highest quality incarnation of FM there has ever been; and far out-performs FS1R as an FM synth.

And - it's large screen editing and motion control means a dynamism to FM unprecedented in FM synthesis - compared to any previous version of FM synthesis (including DX1, MOD-7 or FM8).

Overall, this is a serious piece of kit - and - it's interesting to note that early (current) reviews and demos are all positive.

There has definitely been deep thinking, deep engineering and expansive musical thought put into Montage - it's not some fly-by-night 'attempt'. Yamaha have given an earnest, serious piece of kit to the world, and I expect it to be worthy of use by the like of Stevie Wonder and Herbie Hancock.

I honestly think it time to stop bashing this thing, and if you can't quite embrace it, give it its 'due' as a serious effort on Yamaha's part. This is not playing 'second fiddle' to any other instrument (excuse the pun), whether from Yamaha's past or to the likes of the Kronos. It's got its own depth and breath - and character.


All of the past glories you list are not necessary to allow this to make it's own mark - and - as I have flagged in previous posts - it does (to me) carry Yamaha's 'performance ethos' - so they cannot be blamed for ignoring their past in that regard - it's just not manifest through multiple synth engines .

Kevin, you'll get (mostly) no argument from me on your points. I hope it does live up to being a good synth; I'll be my own judge of that when I finally get to try one.

That does not stop people like myself from wishing that Yamaha did not go further. I keep mentioning my desire in the hope that (assuming others make the same view as well) that Yamaha marketing might take note one day.

I also do not think I was Montage Bashing, just expressing an opinion which is still extant in my view.

It's nice to have a dream even whilst acknowledging reality that the Montage is currently what it is, and it not being all I wanted it to be will not stop me from checking it out to see what its capabilities are. I still need to retire my EX5 from gigging this year.

[SanderXpander]

That depends on how it is written of course. If written in a language like C with abstracted hardware, it would be easy(ish). If hard coded to the platform, then I agree it would be a bit more of a challenge.

Example: I write my synth librarians in Java and as a result they target Windows, Linux and OS X all from the same code base because Java has abstracted the hardware.

I'm not a coder but from what I understand, that is one reason Java is so slow. I would expect Yamaha, using custom audio DSPs needing super low lstency performance, to use very hardware specific code.

But even for more advanced code there can be far reaching consequences, like the OSX switch to Intel wasn't trivial and still represents a schism for older apps.

Java might not be the best example for where you want absolute performance (compiled code will always be faster); I was using it as an example of writing in a way that you abstract the model of what you are running from away from the hardware as much as you can. I.e. do not hit the hardware directly - go through a virtualisation layer - I assume Korg must have done that with some of their soft synths which are running on different platforms. I could be wrong, mind.

I agree that Korg must have, considering the Oasys PCI card and the fact that the Oasys workstation and the Kronos work on Linux and there are VST synths.

However, it is also clear that the Oasys code base is different from the Triton/M3/Krome code base, judging from the lack of a piano roll editor on the Oasys/Kronos and many other small differences. I'm pretty sure the code base was split when Oasys came on the market, and thus Oasys was something of a "prototype" or test generation. It paid off as Korg is now miles ahead of the competition. I'll say again that I've seen no evidence of Yamaha taking ANY steps towards porting their code away from custom hardware.

[Bachus]

I'm not a coder but from what I understand, that is one reason Java is so slow. I would expect Yamaha, using custom audio DSPs needing super low lstency performance, to use very hardware specific code.

But even for more advanced code there can be far reaching consequences, like the OSX switch to Intel wasn't trivial and still represents a schism for older apps.

Java might not be the best example for where you want absolute performance (compiled code will always be faster); I was using it as an example of writing in a way that you abstract the model of what you are running from away from the hardware as much as you can. I.e. do not hit the hardware directly - go through a virtualisation layer - I assume Korg must have done that with some of their soft synths which are running on different platforms. I could be wrong, mind.

I agree that Korg must have, considering the Oasys PCI card and the fact that the Oasys workstation and the Kronos work on Linux and there are VST synths.

However, it is also clear that the Oasys code base is different from the Triton/M3/Krome code base, judging from the lack of a piano roll editor on the Oasys/Kronos and many other small differences. I'm pretty sure the code base was split when Oasys came on the market, and thus Oasys was something of a "prototype" or test generation. It paid off as Korg is now miles ahead of the competition. I'll say again that I've seen no evidence of Yamaha taking ANY steps towards porting their code away from custom hardware.

Seems the reason other companies dont go the Korg kronos road is the fact that using a highend expensive hardware platform will prevent them from slowly transfering the new technollogies to lower end keyboards after a few years..

However on the high end, they are alls truggling, while Korg still has so much unused potential when all they need to do is upgrade their system to 64 bit and adapt high end intel Core i technollogy...

But then, right now, there probbably is no need for Korg to take another huge step, unless they want to compete with software based DAWs for studio stuff..

[Kevin Nolan]

Hi Derek - sure - saying you're Montage bashing is too strong - I do take that back - but - I said that because you, and many others, seem to be focusing almost exclusively on what Montage does _not_ deliver; while essentially being oblivious to what the character of the instrument is - which is pretty complete in its own right.

I understand your desire for en EX5 replacement and I realise this is a Korg forum and Korg have Kronos and so forth so I accept the comparison is inevitable.

[Derek Cook]

Hi Derek - sure - saying you're Montage bashing is too strong - I do take that back - but - I said that because you, and many others, seem to be focusing almost exclusively on what Montage does _not_ deliver; while essentially being oblivious to what the character of the instrument is - which is pretty complete in its own right.

I understand your desire for en EX5 replacement and I realise this is a Korg forum and Korg have Kronos and so forth so I accept the comparison is inevitable.

I say it on Yamaha forums as well.

If I was Montage bashing, oblivious to what it could do, and just focusing on what it doesn't do, why would I in previous posts be expressing an interest to checking one out when I can?

[Kevin Nolan]

Fair point Derek

I'm overly "defensive" on Yamaha's part for sure (just in case it hadn't been noticed !).

[Hugo]

A quick question - does the Montage feature the loop remix functionality of the Motif series, or does this require a sequencer onboard?

[Kevin Nolan]

Unfortunately not - it doesn't have any sampling capabilities at all.

[Hugo]

Unfortunately not - it doesn't have any sampling capabilities at all.

Thanks for responding, Kevin. But I was actually thinking about "remixing" midi data - a feature that is found in the Motif series and in the RS7000.

[Mosquita Muerta]

That's easy to answer - because the hope is that Yamaha will make something that takes all the best parts of Kronos, adds their own awesome sauce and produce something that covers all the bases Kronos does but is better. In turn challenging Korg to step up their game. The same way this was the case five or ten years ago with Motif/M3/Fantom.

I completely agree though that we can and should still appreciate Montage for what it's trying to do instead of what it's not.

According to Yamaha research, people dont want all those tools a Kronos has to offer...

According to me, thats just Yamaha marketing talking, because yamaha can not create anything that comes close to having the processing power of the Kronos as long as they stick to their selfcreated processors..

Kronos use a very noisy fans...Yamaha use last technology....no fans blowing dust....instead, a very quite environment as it should, believe it or not, Kronos won't touch the Montage sound quality...not even closer.... cheers

[GregC]

That's easy to answer - because the hope is that Yamaha will make something that takes all the best parts of Kronos, adds their own awesome sauce and produce something that covers all the bases Kronos does but is better. In turn challenging Korg to step up their game. The same way this was the case five or ten years ago with Motif/M3/Fantom.

I completely agree though that we can and should still appreciate Montage for what it's trying to do instead of what it's not.

According to Yamaha research, people dont want all those tools a Kronos has to offer...

According to me, thats just Yamaha marketing talking, because yamaha can not create anything that comes close to having the processing power of the Kronos as long as they stick to their selfcreated processors..

Kronos use a very noisy fans...Yamaha use last technology....no fans blowing dust....instead, a very quite environment as it should, believe it or not, Kronos won't touch the Montage sound quality...not even closer.... cheers

thats your opinion. The Montage is not in customer hands, yet.

The Kronos fan debate is a very old debate and has mostly been fixed by an OS update.

[jimknopf]

Kronos use a very noisy fans...Yamaha use last technology....no fans blowing dust....instead, a very quite environment as it should, believe it or not, Kronos won't touch the Montage sound quality...not even closer.... cheers

Both an OS update allowing to put the Kronos fan into a silent mode, and the possibility to exchange it very easily with a silent fan (which then is hardly audible at all) have made the Kronos fan a complete non-issue since quite a while for Kronis users.

"Kronos won't touch the Montage sound quality"?
A strong belief - based on what?

It can hardly be based on the available demos so far, which only showed two things, namely that the Montage
- has pristine basic sound quality - just like the Kronos
- and the Montage has some nice patches (especially from the FM engine plus some nice fresh sampled AWM2 sounds): nice again. But: only a fraction of what you can get from a Kronos:
with synth sounds from three great sounding VAs (opposed to Yamaha's IMO not really convincing sampled synth sounds I heard so far), a B3 clone with better Leslie (opposed to very poor sounding organ sounds in the Montage), an FM engine delivering all basic FM stuff (though the new Montage FM is even more developed here), and user sample streaming, opening a much broader and bigger world of sonic possibilities for any kind of high class, big sampling libraries on your Kronos, than what you will ever get into the very limited 1,x Gb of Montage sampling space.

So if you look at the whole picture:
in which way exactly do you believe the Montage should be sounding far better than a Kronos??? Isn't it quite the opposite? Aren't the sonic possibilities of the five years old Kronos, with all the sonic flexibility it offers to users, still miles ahead of those of the Montage, all in all?

Still, the Montage is a great sounding synth with a lot of sonic possibilities of its own. And whoever wants this synth at it's price tag, will simply buy it. Simple as that.

[Derek Cook]

Fair point Derek

I'm overly "defensive" on Yamaha's part for sure (just in case it hadn't been noticed !).

I don't think I noticed

Up until 2014 (year of the Kronos for me) I was one of Yamaha's staunchest fans, and still am for all the classic gear I have and will never sell. I really hope they get my interest again.

I deliberately have not been checking out YouTube vids of Montage. I'll try one out in the flesh when they are released.

As i mentioned above, I can still have a dream whilst acknowledging reality, and even if current reality of the Montage doesn't match my Yamaha dream machine, I will still be checking out the Montage