Montage by Yamaha

[Derek Cook]

At the risk of being controversial, I am not sure that FM-X is a new forward thinking development. At first glance (and I will readily confess, I have not had time to read up in any great depth, so could well be wrong) it looks like an FS1r with the formant bits chopped out and more polyphony.

AWM2 is more of the same from the Motif.

That is not to say I am not interested in checking it out.

[jimknopf]

@Kevin
Sorry, but that about "new thinking" from Yamaha can't be serious.

I can see literally ZERO groundbreaking about the new Montage (for which you claim unreal fantasies of "new thinking"), apart from some nice small additions to very well known hardware techologies. In sharp contrast I regard the whole development from Oasys over several Kronos updates up to the present status as ten times more impressive than anything Yamaha has done with the Motif in all these years, including the Montage.

I rather think Yamaha's strong selling point was a very well working connection to lots of gigging musicians, focusing completely on out of the box sounds for synth-lazy users, with the goal of providing them simply with the most common, most used middle-of-the-road presets, based on an advanced ROMpler concept. And that's already the whole, short but well working story.

Not much to be fascinated about, from my view, though nobody can deny how well that concept has been working.

So from my view the one thing Korg can and should learn from Yamaha, is investing as much into tons of well working onstage presets as into technology. They have already gained some ground there due to many additional packeges and upgrades, but should definitely add more of that kind to their factory presets.

[Kevin Nolan]

But programming it via a touch screen, and controlling its parameters via motion sequencing, are intriguing prospects. Ease of programming FM synthesis is important, and as a veteran FM programmer, I can't wait to get my hand on it.

And to go back on MOD-7 and FM8 a little - I personally struggle to visualise the configured algorithms via both of those engines - so I actually find they slow me down. While 88 algorithms is more limited, they do cater for a staggering array of single to multi oscillator, serial and parallel formats, but more importantly, the visual flow of signal is always obvious - and hence I'm literally multiples of times faster programming Yamaha FM synthesis than MOD-7 or FM8 (as in - when designing sounds via FM, from the ground up, something I do a lot for every new musical work).

The SY range are so rapid-fire with respect to FM programming - I personally find it incredibly fluid; so the prospect of programming 8-operator algorithms via touch screen is, to me, a radical enhancement to FM programming (potentially, I haven't done it yet!!) - and may unleash FM synthesis, for the first time ever. I may be overstating it - but I believe there's a real chance FM-X will come to pass as the firs time FM synthesis becomes a living, organic synth engine.

[SanderXpander]

I really don't understand how you could get any more logical and clear on a signal flow level than MOD-7's patch panel. Which, by the way, is also controlled via touch screen.
But I'm glad you're excited I'm looking forward to playing one too.

[Kevin Nolan]

Don't get me wrong - huge admirer of MOD-7. One of the best synth engines there is. But I do find it tricky to program. Probably just me, don't want to be critical of it. I'm not a huge fan of buying programs, but I'd love a few 3rd party program sets for both MOD-7 and STR-1

[EXer]

[...] and controlling its parameters via motion sequencing, are intriguing prospects.

Sorry, I can see nothing new here.

Please have a look at the "Multi step modulator" on the V-Synth: 4 sequencer tracks which can control parameters of the oscillators, filters, lfos, envelopes, fx, etc.

so the prospect of programming 8-operator algorithms via touch screen is, to me, a radical enhancement to FM programming (potentially, I haven't done it yet!!) - and may unleash FM synthesis, for the first time ever.

First time ever?

You can already have this and even more (FS synthesis) with a FS1R and the "FS1R editor" software to program it.

You can even have "motion sequence" on a FS1R: 2 freely assignable MIDI CCs can control up to 5 parameters each. Those CCs are called 'Formant' and 'FM' but they can control many other parameters of the synth, and the FS1R can receive their values from an external MIDI sequencer. There are even corresponding knobs on the panel (yeah, the FS1R had "superknobs" years before that marketing concept was invented!).

And to go back on MOD-7 and FM8 a little - I personally struggle to visualise the configured algorithms via both of those engines - so I actually find they slow me down. While 88 algorithms is more limited, they do cater for a staggering array of single to multi oscillator, serial and parallel formats, but more importantly, the visual flow of signal is always obvious - and hence I'm literally multiples of times faster programming Yamaha FM synthesis than MOD-7 or FM8 (as in - when designing sounds via FM, from the ground up, something I do a lot for every new musical work).

88 algorithms may seem a lot, but - assuming that those 88 algorithms are the same as on a FS1R - they remain very 'classical': there are more of them than on a DX7 because there are more operators, but they are arranged the same way and they still have only one FB loop encompassing only 1 op. Not much innovation there either.

Let's talk about about the FM engine of the Alesis Fusion.
It allows you to define your own algorithms: the output of any op can be sent to the modulation input of every op, including itself. This free routing gives a tremendous flexibility, the more so that it is much easier to obtain sounds that are usable in musical context than with Yamaha FM where you quickly obtain harsh noise as soon as you start stacking ops and raising the modulation indexes. Less so on the Fusion.

Regarding the graphical representation of the routing, it's different form DX algorithms, but in French I would say "ce n'est pas la mer à boire" (litterally "you don't have to drink the sea", meaning it's not so hard as it may appear).
___

I'm convinced the return of FM is a good thing, but I'm still waiting for a significant break through...

[Bachus]

At the risk of being controversial, I am not sure that FM-X is a new forward thinking development. At first glance (and I will readily confess, I have not had time to read up in any great depth, so could well be wrong) it looks like an FS1r with the formant bits chopped out and more polyphony.

AWM2 is more of the same from the Motif.

That is not to say I am not interested in checking it out.

Orriginally FM aimed to reproduce the sounds of the much more expensive Analogue synths, thats however where FM failed... But the sound it created was nevertheless good and most overall authentic..

And this is where FM-X steps up, it archieves the orriginal goal of FM synthesis, reproducing the sound of analogue synths of old in a digital environment..

Also AWM in the Montage seems to have some huge improvements and new options under the hood compared to Motif XS/XF..

Seems that the motion sequencer on top of both engines is what integrates 8 spperate keyboard sounds into one huge sound, motion sequencing is what connects the different sounds to eachother in a performance..


Cant wayt to get my hands on the reference manuall and dive deep in the options of the engines to find out how much depth there is in comparrison to the Motifs...

[Derek Cook]

At the risk of being controversial, I am not sure that FM-X is a new forward thinking development. At first glance (and I will readily confess, I have not had time to read up in any great depth, so could well be wrong) it looks like an FS1r with the formant bits chopped out and more polyphony.

AWM2 is more of the same from the Motif.

That is not to say I am not interested in checking it out.

Orriginally FM aimed to reproduce the sounds of the much more expensive Analogue synths, thats however where FM failed... But the sound it created was nevertheless good and most overall authentic..

And this is where FM-X steps up, it archieves the orriginal goal of FM synthesis, reproducing the sound of analogue synths of old in a digital environment..

Also AWM in the Montage seems to have some huge improvements and new options under the hood compared to Motif XS/XF..

Seems that the motion sequencer on top of both engines is what integrates 8 spperate keyboard sounds into one huge sound, motion sequencing is what connects the different sounds to each other in a performance..


Cant wayt to get my hands on the reference manuall and dive deep in the options of the engines to find out how much depth there is in comparrison to the Motifs...

I'm not convinced that Yamaha were trying to emulate analog when the DX7 came out. It was a complete game changer, so much that a lot of people "abandoned" the "limitations" of analog for quite a few years.

It's a personal opinion of course, but I think that analog sounding FM is nothing new. FM in an SY77/SY99 guise can sound very analog. An amazing (for its day) digital, but very organic sounding, filter helps of course.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the Montage. I want a good replacement for my EX5 on stage, but I am not convinced it is a game changer - it revisits two of Yamaha's popular synths. I see it as a careful (corporate) step back into multi-engine synthesis. Sales volume may dictate if more is to come.

[Synthoid]

I am not dissing the Montage. I want a good replacement for my EX5 on stage, but I am not convinced it is a game changer - it revisits two of Yamaha's popular synths. I see it as a careful (corporate) step back into multi-engine synthesis. Sales volume may dictate if more is to come.

I feel the same way. This keyboard isn't a game-changer, although there are lots of musicians who are somewhat excited about it. I'm looking forward to trying it out, but I would most likely buy a Kronos first to replace my M3.

[JPROBERTLA]

While I could never trade my Kronos for a Montage; because it isn't a workstation, I am interested to see what it sounds like because for my purposes the Kronos does not have enough polyphony. I had two Kronos for a while and that provided a solution, but considering the overall quality of Yamaha synths, perhaps the Montage might be a better choice than a second Kronos.

That said, at this time it is much too expensive. But Yamaha historically offers scaled down variants like they did with the Motif. I realize that the technology isn't really new or game changing, but if it sounds good than it sounds good. Yamaha has always had very good factory sounds, so its not like you have to be intimate with a new UI to take advantage of what it offers.

For now that's my plan - wait and see what they do to make the basic sound palette available for significantly less than $3000. Maybe even a rack version, but for sure 61 with typical Yamaha build quality. Would be a nice addition to my K2-88.

[Kevin Nolan]

I've mooted this before - I see this instrument a little differently to the sentiments broadly expressed here.

Historically I've been a huge Yamaha fan, and as mentioned many times before own and use many of their classics - the CS80, CS40M, DX1, SY77 & 99, VL1 and EX5.

What characterises Yamaha synthesizers, clearly and resolutely, since the original SY1 in the early '70s, is performance control. No other company has engaged performance control in the same way. It's a deep seated ethos in Yamaha synthesizers.

Don't get me wrong - there are of course many other manufacturers who have exquisite and often equal performance capabilities on their instruments, but for Yamaha, performance control has been 'the essence' of the Yamaha Synthesizer. A bit like Roland's obsession over the years to emulate the human voice and other acoustic instruments.

If you look at the DX1 - it has a separate set or performance memories, and almost as many performance parameters as there are FM-synth parameters. The CS80 has the extraordinary set of 20 performance 'levers' just above the wonderful 2-foot ribbon controller. Those levers were designed to provide the CS80 with extraordinary performance capabilities, so wondrously exploited by Vangelis through the years; and give the CS80 near-modular synthesis flexibility in sound design, I might add.

So to me, the Montage is, genuinely, a huge nod back to that heritage. In fact it's evident throughout the Reface range too - especially the CS.

So to me, Yamaha have, today, achieved something quite excellent - a brand new performance based synthesizer. I'm actually increasingly impressed by just how much of their legacy they have carefully followed in both Reface and Montage - by how much Yamaha are thinking about that today; and not in gimmicky ways as are Roland.

So in Montage - I see it as a significant development beyond the workstation, which lets face it, has had its day as a concept, particularly w.r.t to sequencing, because of the ubiquity of the DAW. In Montage, they have stripped down the workstation baggage and dropped the burden of less than impressive sequencing, and as mentioned in previous posts, fully embraces multi-tambral synthesis in brand new Performances that straight forwardly unleash complex sound design and performance, and at the same time allow for seamless integration into an DAW. It is, to me, an excellent if not optimum merger of their traditional performance-centric control with modern multitimbral performance expectations, for both live and recording scenarios.

For sure the synthesis engines are not brand new - but the way they are offered in this package is brand new. And, their integration is now seamless. And underpinng this performance based capability - two top-nothch synth engines which on their own merits are impressive for sure.

I don't think we're supposed to be impressed by brand new synth engines. Yamaha are not even hailing this as such. They are saying that the synth engines will deliver where they are expected to to the highest standards and matching the best of the competition (broadly) - but, it's the integration of these engines into true performance based 'Performances' and the novel approach to using them that I think is the point to this instrument; and that is new and quite unique in hardware.

Of course I haven't played one, so here's hoping the practical reality bares up to this ethos - but I urge you to consider Yamaha's legacy and ethos, and view this instrument in this regard. There is no doubt that Yamaha are thinking this way.

I'm not trying to be a 'fanboy' in this or trying to convince anyone here of this - we'll all make up our own minds on this; but I can assure you I will look forward to owning one (sure - in about a year - it IS expensive though not surprisingly so) - because it's such a excellent performance based machine - which I adore.

I honestly think there has been a significant amount of smart thinking gone into this instrument to harness their synthesis and performance based legacy, strip out the burdening and unnecessary aspects to workstations and created an intriguing and forward looking performance based instrument.

Not for everyone - many will rather own a Kronos - but for me, it's a very exciting move by Yamaha, one which I feel they couldn't have done a much better job on.

[SanderXpander]

Without being disrespectful to one side or the other, has anyone else noticed how roughly half of this by now monstrous thread is Kevin trying to convince us this is a great and innovative synth and the other half is mostly people being utterly unimpressed?
And almost none of us have played one

[marc1]

So in Montage - I see it as a significant development beyond the workstation, which lets face it, has had its day as a concept, particularly w.r.t to sequencing, because of the ubiquity of the DAW.

I seriously hope that the Montage lives up to the expectations you're projecting onto it.

With respect to the workstation concept I have to strongly disagree.
People (especially songwriters) would work with on board sequencers if they were more user friendly and up to date (as some of the polls here certainly have indicated). The reason why developers neglect them is simple, there are generally more live musicians using hardware synths. You could also argue that apart from the stage the hardware synth has had its day (except for pure analog synths of course)-I know owners of studios who don't possess a single piece of hardware anymore (no synths, no samplers, no effects units-all done within the realms of software). They say it's cheaper and easier to work like that.

And let's be honest. People would invest in hardware if it was reasonably priced and truly added to the sonic repertoire. They're tired of buying the same repackaged 10 year (+) old sounds over and over again.

[Kevin Nolan]

@SanderXpander: that's me! Welcome to Korgforums!! If it's worth debating - why use a hundred words when a 1000 will do

for the record - I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm simply expressing the way I see it. Meant with respect -I do not care who buys what - this is all so subjective. And - this is a Korg forums, I don't think there is going to be support for Yamaha efforts here. I migrated to Korg when I purchased OASYS, but I'm a Yamaha man through and through. When Yamah a Ireland give you a new VL1 for a fifth of the retail price, when released, you tend to have a bit of loyalty.

@Marc1 - you make many excellent points. I definitely agree what workstations with first rate sequencers would be excellent - but that just isn't going to happen. And hardware in media work - agree - it just doesn't happen.

All I'm saying here is that this instrument is a good optimization of existing paradigms, and will fit very nicely thank you very much into my setup!

[DmitryKo]

People (especially songwriters) would work with on board sequencers if they were more user friendly and up to date (as some of the polls here certainly have indicated). The reason why developers neglect them is simple, there are generally more live musicians using hardware synths.

I can't see any simplicity. Synthesizers are not personal computers, and those that tried to emulate the desktop DAW workflow, like the Roland MV-8000 series, were not a market success.

The desktop has key factors like an open platform with broad hardware and software compatibiltiy, which allows the economies of scale and a broad ecosystem. In this regard, no hardware synthesizer comes close even to a 30-year old Atari ST which started the software sequencer revolution.

People would invest in hardware if it was reasonably priced and truly added to the sonic repertoire. They're tired of buying the same repackaged 10 year (+) old sounds over and over again.

I thought that was the whole point of presets - allowing you to effortlessly "upgrade" your existing synthesizer and keep intact your 10+ year old sounds and arrangements. If you need "new", you should program your own sounds or buy 3rd party sounds.

(As for "reasonably priced", a 6-voice Dave Smith OB-6 is "only" $3000 these days - that would be $825 in 1978 dollars, but in reality, a 6-voice Oberheim OB-X was about $5000, which would be an equivalent of $16000 today).