Montage by Yamaha

[marc1]

I have to add an example which seems to contradict what I wrote earlier.
When the MPC Touch was introduced many people hoped initially for a standalone unit which would combine all the features of a classic MPC (Midi, Sampling, Sequencer) + seamless computer integration, modern touchscreen interface and a huge sound library.

Many were put off by the fact that it's just another controller for the MPC software (albeit a very nice looking one). So you also find a tendency to go for hardware with all those people who like a more hands on approach to music making (especially hobbyists and home studio producers).

[jimknopf]

@SanderXpander

You are absolutely right about the status of the thread.
And yes, many/most of us will complete their picture by checking out the Montage in a store when it appears in May or summer.

But:
in present times this does not raise my expectations of fundamental new insights significantly. Since some years we have seen the amount of pre-sale information in the internet rise constantly, to a present level, where it's really not difficult any more to get a pretty appropriate picture of new hardware appearing.

Of course it still makes sense to get an even better view by physical testing: you get some important additional details and a more complete overview. And you will probably detect some more relevant details only in practical use in the course of time. Anyways, in the last years I have not had a single case, where I got a fundamentally different impression by physical testing, than I already had by specs, manuals, audio and video demos.

Even youtube videos with their limited audio quality, while not covering the complete frequency range of gear, still deliver (especially when recorded directly from the devise's outs) a surprisingly relevant first impression of new gear.

So yes, we all still have to complete our Montage evaluation. And at the same time: no, nothing really spectatcular will happen doing that. Last time I had that experience confirmed has not been long ago: before buying the Prophet 6. Physical testing was important and exciting to complete the picture, but it didn't change the first impression fundamentally in any way.

The workstation format will stay the most important format for gigging musicians for quite a while to come from my view, and the Montage just doesn't deliver here, failing to be that kind of main keyboard.

Full sequencing functionality is not so much relevant for being able to record whole songs, but for being able to make full use of midi and audio playback functionality (while still being able to add to or change something on the fly in an existing track in a hotel room with just the main synth in immediate reach). Backing tracks even have become more important in recent years, seeing an increasing number of new solo or small band formats, where 1-3 band members work with a 4-6 member format by using backing tracks. And the poll(s) in this forum also show an overwhelming appreciciation of sequencer functionality, which seems to confirm it's importance.

From this perspective I DO like some things and sounds in the new Montage a lot. And at the same time I'm heavily underwhelmed by the overall concept and by a lot of details which I do not like at all!

[marc1]

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.

I'm not talking about pulling off whole musical productions with a Kronos. But even if one intends to use the Kronos sequencer as a mere scratchpad for songwriting one ends up with a lot of obstacles. The MV 8000 simply had been too late on the market. At that time (2004) many people already used DAWs and except for some Hip Hop producers (such as RZA) no one saw the need to invest into another groovebox turned sequencer.

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.

Not necessarily. Not everyone plays in a coverband since 20 or 30 years.
And many people these days naturally compare (hardware)synth presets to softsynth presets and usually opt for that which (to their ears) is the most convincing or pleasing.

(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)

You've certainly already heard about Moore's law (or haven't you?) which implies that technological progress is driven by the doubling of computational power every 12-24 months while maintaining the same price level. In the end this means that hardware components such as Ram, SSDs, and processors have become (comparably) cheap. What you're actually paying for (in a hardware synth) are R&D, marketing, salaries and profits. Back in the eighties the situation was different.

[Bachus]

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.

I think Kronos+ montage makes a great combination.... Comparable to Kronos + Jupiter 80. Jupiter 80 livesets and Montage performances pretty much have the same function.. Both add another fresh layer to the greatness of the Kronos.

[Kevin Nolan]

@jimknopf - you don't have to test an ethos, an approach. That's already evident in Montage. That's something real and tangible, which either you're interested, or not. It's clear to me, as a long term Yamaha user, what they are about here.

Of course there's no necessity for you, or anyone in particular, to buy into that. For me, I 'get it', and it's an an important dimension to an instrument, which is why I've always been interested in Yamaha - they excel at performance control. No testing needed - it's an approach.

I agree physical testing is always desirable, but not possible very often these days what with the likes of Thomann dominating the European market and wiping out small sellers. I bought OASYS from the spec sheet and online demos, and it didn't hamper the quality of the decision making. I think most can tell, from the quality of online access, whether an instrument has the character they are looking for - I'd hazard a guess that the vast majority of purchases are made that way these days/\

[DmitryKo]

The MV 8000 simply had been too late on the market

Fairlight CMI was on the market in 1978. The point is, it's not that "simple" for a few software engineers to reimplement a successful desktop OS and well-established sequencing software on a closed embedded hardware platform. When they are able to do it, the price point is much higher than you would expect even with off-the-shelf hardware and software, because the development costs are not amortised among billions of users.

MV8000 and OASYS/Kronos are as good as you will ever practically get on a dedicated synthesizer keyboard with a closed-source development model. It would take a switch to an open desktop platfrom with an broad software ecosystem to make the user experience substantially better. Would you want Korg to come with their own desktop platform? Yamaha tried to market one in 1980s, with mild success. They probably wouldn't want to repeat it, so they offer iPad apps and PC software instead.

technological progress is driven by the doubling of computational power every 12-24 months while maintaining the same price level

Strictly speaking, Moore's law talks about the number of logic gates, and it only applies to digital integrated curcuits.

Not everyone plays in a coverband

What does it have to do with cover bands? Do you ever record your own material and/or play it live?

The Montage has ~1900 locations in the preset bank (of which 9x128=1152 come from the Motif XF) and 640 locations in the user bank that can be swapped with 8 user library banks.

What you're actually paying for (in a hardware synth) are R&D, marketing, salaries and profits. Back in the eighties the situation was different.

Please explain to me how Moore's law would help offset the costs of designing a professoinal DMI product like the Motif or the Montage for a user base of several thousand keyboard players. Obviously the cost of several VLSI components has not played a major role in Yamaha's music keyboards during the last 15 years, as neither their price nor performance (polypnony and FX power) changed much, while at the same time semiconductor process nodes scaled down from 180 nm to 14 nm and the number of gates increased by three orders of magnitutde.

[Derek Cook]

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.

That describes me, apart from replace OASYS with Kronos, and I never had such a bargain from Yamaha like a VL at 20%.

Kudos to Yamaha UK, though, when I was writing the motif.factory Java librarian, they arranged for the loan of a Motif ES keyboard for testing (I had a Motif Rack ES version), and the contacts I had back in the day were very helpful. They were/are helpful people.

I jumped to the Kronos as it ticked all the boxes for what I would have liked to have seen in a Yamaha workstation in terms of multi-engine synthesis, but could wait no longer. I do believe I made the right choice, and I am now a Korg fan as well as a Yamaha fan (TBH no Korg had really interested me prior to that - probably just due to personal preference on sonic character).

As I said, I am a little guarded in my reaction to the the Montage as I really want to try one firstin the flesh before forming an impression. A stunning AWM engine with a stunning FM engine with good master keyboard facilities will probably be a good fit with the Kronos for stage use, and if there is more to come in terms of features for the Montage, then I will be a happy man in total.

I think Kevin made an astute observation quite a few posts back, where this has the look of a large corporation dipping its toes back into the multi engine synthesis (i.e. more than one, less than three ) domain after getting burnt with the reaction to the DSP problems of the EX5 in performance mode - which despite that (and a few other foibles) is still a stunning machine today. They got it mostly right, but it could have been so different with a few more DSP chips.

I look forward to checking out the Montage when I can.

[marc1]

This is as good as you can ever get on a dedicated synth keyboard. It would take a desktop computer with open ecosystem to make it substantially better. Would you want Korg to market their own desktop PC platform?

I don't know what you're talking about. The Roland Fantom X twelve years ago had a substantially better sequencer (although it didn't offer as much audio tracks as Kronos). The Roland Fantom G offered 128 tracks of midi and 24 tracks audio, while it certainly may be debatable wether it had been easy and useful to work with. Korgs own Krome and M3 offer better editing capababilies than Kronos. Companies already proved time and again that it's possibly for them to implement certain things if they want to.

Fairlight CMI was on the market in 1978. The point is, it's not that "simple" for a few software engineers to reimplement a successful desktop OS and well-established sequencing software on a closed embedded hardware platform.

We're not in 1978 and Farilight is not Yamaha, Roland (or even Korg for that matter). Korg, Roland and Yamaha have been around forever, unlike Fairlight that went down at the beginning of the 90ies without anybody really noticing it. They've had enough time to learn and improve and to build on their experience/legacy (or why do you think does the UI of Kronos resemble in parts that of a Triton or even Trinity, it's not just because they wanted to offer their loyal user base the same familier interface over and over)

Strictly speaking, Moore's law talks about the number of gates, and it only applies to digital integrated curcuits.

Yeah I kind of already knew that and I wouldn't have needed wikipedia to tell me again. But I tell you something: unlike what you want to believe Moore's law is widely accepted among scientists to be a good predictor of technological progress in general and not just "digital integrated circuits".
If you don't believe me, have a look here:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Moo ... 0941901416

and please let me quote: Looking back today, Moore and other information revolution pioneers, who contributed to this clearly written volume, realize that Moore's law applies not simply to electronics but generally to technological change in our era. -- Thomas Hughes, Author of ‘Human-Built World' and ‘American Genesis'

I can also recommend Ray Kurzweil (right! the founder of the synth company) and his website if you seriously need some scientific backlash on the topic. Please have a look here:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/

I can even remember an article where he clearly states that it has become apparent that Moore's law doesn't only apply to "integrated digital circuits" but software for example as well (and here we go again: technological progress in general) -but I'll look for it, maybe I can find it again.

Please explain to me how Moore's law would help offset the costs of designing a professoinal DMI product like the Motif or the Montage for a user base of several thousand keyboard players.

It's not like these companies start all over again every time they develop a new product (that would be kind of a waste of resources, don't you think?) No, they draw on a lot of experience and source code. And let me quote Korg here (from an interview from 2005 about the then new Korg Oasys which you can find here
http://archive.oreilly.com/pub/a/oreill ... oasys.html):

Korg has shipped products based on the same technology; the same R&D team developed the original OASYS keyboard prototype and the later OASYS PCI, a PCI card and software platform for PC and Mac. "Many of the underlying algorithms are carried through from those earlier projects," says Phillips, though he and Kovarsky emphasize that Korg has optimized and expanded nearly everything. If the OASYS PCI sounds were the originals, then each OASYS keyboard sound is a "special edition" extended version.

And please notice that I'm not claiming that it would have been a breeze to programm such a complex machine as the Kronos (definitely far from it). In fact I still think the Kronos is the only digital synth worth buying at the moment. I can only applaud Korg! To me they're the only synth company that takes their customers seriously. On the other hand I have to wonder how a company like Yamaha (that certainly has more than just a "few software engineers" employed and that practically has their own software sequencer company-Steinberg-under contract) can seriously believe that people (in this day and age) are still willing to spend such large sums of money on (imho) minor improvements.

Obviously the cost of several VLSI components has not played a major role in Yamaha's music keyboards during the last 15 years, as neither their price nor performance (polypnony and FX power) changed much, while at the same time semiconductor process nodes scaled down from 180 nm to 14 nm and the number of gates increased by three orders of magnitutde.

Yeah, actually this is something that you should ask yourself: why big companies such as Yamaha and Roland still go for proprietary chips (ASICs) when Korg clearly demonstrated that off the shelf pc parts offer more advantages.

[DmitryKo]

The Roland Fantom G offered 128 tracks of midi and 24 tracks audio, while it certainly may be debatable wether it had been easy and useful to work with. Korgs own Krome and M3 offer better editing capababilies than Kronos. Companies already proved time and again that it's possibly for them to implement certain things if they want to.

They don't really want to! It diverts their limited engineering resources to re-implementing features that are better covered by external software running on desktop/laptop/tablet devices. If users could install their own sequencing software, like you do it on your desktop comptuter, they would choose the features and the workflow that suits them best. Unfortunately the limited user base does not allow such an open system.

They've had enough time to learn and improve and to build on their experience/legacy (or why do you think does the UI of Kronos resemble in parts that of a Triton or even Trinity, it's not just because they wanted to offer their loyal user base the same familier interface over and over)

It's not like these companies start all over again every time they develop a new product (that would be kind of a waste of resources, don't you think?) No, they draw on a lot of experience and source code.

If this was a stable and open OS ecosystem, like Microsoft Windows, that would certainly allow a lot of source code reuse. But with closed embedded platforms, anything Korg have engineered for Trinity/Triton/M3 etc. could not be simply moved to OASYS/Kronos, a completely different platform with incompatible development tools. Not to mention very specific source code for Motorola 56K DSP chips used in the OASYS PCI, which had to be re-engineered for Intel SSE2 extensions on a Linux platform.

On the other hand I have to wonder how a company like Yamaha (that certainly has more than just a "few software engineers" employed and that practically has their own software sequencer company-Steinberg-under contract) can seriously believe that people (in this day and age) are still willing to spend such large sums of money on (imho) minor improvements.

Cubase is sequencing software for desktop computers, and musical keyboards are not desktop computers. I think I've made this point five times by now. Even the best examples like Roland MV-8000 and Fantom-G were still quite limited comparing to their desktop counterparts.

Please explain to me how would they just shrink Cubase into the Montage and provide the same user experience. It would only be possible with a motorized 17" display screen popping out from somewhere, and probably a highly advanced AI voice control, unless you are willing to integrate a trackball, an ASCII keyboard, and a motorized mixer control surface as well. Then name it OpenSynth Neko, price it at $7000 and make everyone complain, then go bankrupt in a few years.

this is something that you should ask yourself: why big companies such as Yamaha and Roland still go for proprietary chips (ASICs) when Korg clearly demonstrated that off the shelf pc parts offer more advantages.

Development costs that have to be amortised from the sales of the end product. The fact that the OASYS/Kronos project has not seen any significant development since 2003 should speak volumes.

Moore's law doesn't only apply to "integrated digital circuits" but software for example as well (and here we go again: technological progress in general)

I insist that it applies to the number of gates. It does have some interesting implications, like minitiarisation of components, cost reduction, lower power requirements, massive parallelism, etc. which certainly allowed widespread adoption of very-large-scale integrated circuits in emdedded systems used in everyday life, and marked a move from analog control circuits to sophisticated computer programs.

It doesn't mean these advances come for free though. Today's semiconductor fabrication plant for 300 mm (12") wafers, equipped with the latest Extreme UV lithography equipment, costs south of 4 billion dollars to equip and takes 5 years to put into operation. These are initial investments which have to be repeated each 10-15 years for a new process node. The total costs to design a 14-20 nm IC chip and develop related embedded software have risen to $130 mn, while each 300 mm wafer costs ~$3500-$5000 to produce, and the defect rates could raise considerably as the transistors are reaching the individual atom boundaries. At 5 nm node further minitiaruzation is thought to be impossible.

So the Moore's law has to be taken with the view of development costs that have to be recouped with product sales to the target audience. One thing is to produce a very technologically advanced CCD sensor for a $10 bn space telescope, but a $10 embedded processor running your Android mobile phone or a tone generator chip for a musical keyboard are whole other stories. It's one quite rich customer (NASA) versus 3 billion mobile phone users - which are not very rich for the most part - versus several hundred thousand professtional musicians.


I would still like to hear what performance and/or usability enhancements the Moore's law would bring to tone generator VLSI chips, besides reducing the costs of fabrication. 10000 voices of polyphony? 128 bit 1 MHz resolution and sample rate? 100 oscillators per program? 10 LFOs and 10 filters? I'd just like to know. The OB-6 mentioned above is still a 6-voice analog synth, just like the OB-X in 1978.

[marc1]

Please explain to me how would they just shrink Cubase into the Montage and provide the same user experience. I don't see how it would be possible without a motorized 17" display screen popping out from somewhere, and probably a hihgly advanced AI voice control, unless you are willing to integrate a trackball, an ASCII keyboard, and maybe a motorized mixed control surface as well.

Even the best examples like Roland MV-8000 and Fantom-G were still quite limited comparing to their desktop counterparts.

We're talking apples and oranges here. I never implied that these synth companies should implement a Cubase like environment into their synth (actually this is something you seem to presume that I did) and please show me where I ever said that. All I said was, that it's possible for them to implement certain improvements if they want, especially with regards to the Kronos sequencer (which has remained almost the same since the Oasys.)

Cubase is desktop sequencing software, and hardware musical keyboards are not desktop computers. I think I've made this point five times by now.

Yeah right, I never said that they should hire their Cubase team in order the work on a synth/workstation sequencer (again this is something that you presume I did). But when a new synth like the Montage hits the floors that's supposed to replace the Motif line and that doesn't incorporate at least the same features that enable it to seamlessly integrate with their own DAW (as some here on the forum have suggested) then I seriously have to wonder.

Development costs that have to be amortised from the sales of the end product. The fact that the OASYS/Kronos project has not seen any significant development since 2003 should speak volumes.

Now you're making a fool of yourself. And I'm sure you will find enough forum members that will dispute what you said. But I will speak for myself: if new sound engines, SSD, SST, Setlist mode, the opening up of the system for user sample streaming and some other serious (and very useful) software updates ain't no significant development since the Oasys (or 2003, as you suggest), things that no other hardware synth on earth offers, than I really don't know, why I'm actually arguing with someone like you.

I insist that it applies to the number of gates.

This is something you should suggest to Ray Kurzweil and other scientists. I'm sure they will consider it for a sec and than go on and ignore you.
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Did you even bother to read through some of the links that I've posted?

It doesn't mean these advances come for free though. Today's semiconductor fabrication plant for 450 mm wafers, equipped with the latest Extreme UV lithography equipment, costs south of 4 billion dollars to equip and takes 5 years to put into operation. These are initial investments which have to be repeated each 10-15 years.

Guess what, all the big manufacters (Intel/AMD...) of pc parts are prepared to invest and they're still making profits. What's the point?

At 5 nm node each transistor would consist of only several atoms, so further minitiaruzation is thought to be impossible.

Yeah, this is why they plan to go 3 dimensial with their architecture in order to be able to stick to Moore's law. And your point is? Did you have to look at wikipedia for these things again? You can come up with tech talk all you want that doesn't really contribute to the subject and which you obviously seem not to understand yourself.

I would still like to hear what performance and/or usability enhancements the Moore's law would bring to tone generator VLSI chips, besides reducing the costs of fabrication. 10000 voices of polyphony? 128 bit 1 MHz resolution and sample rate? 100 oscillators per program? 10 LFOs and 10 filters? I'd just like to know.

Afterall this is what technological progress is all about, improving technology while reducing costs at the same time. And you can argue on and off that this doesn't apply to music technology in general (or synth technology specifically).
But I can assure you that the majority of musicians is well aware of any development that takes place and they are more critical in this regard than maybe 10 years ago.

[Jan1]

Development costs that have to be amortised from the sales of the end product. The fact that the OASYS/Kronos project has not seen any significant development since 2003 should speak volumes.

Now you're making a fool of yourself. And I'm sure you will find enough forum members that will dispute what you said. But I will speak for myself: if new sound engines, SSD, SST, Setlist mode, the opening up of the system for user sample streaming and some other serious (and very useful) software updates ain't no significant development since the Oasys (or 2003, as you suggest), things that no other hardware synth on earth offers, than I really don't know, why I'm actually arguing with someone like you.

You're absolutely right about that.
BurningBush made a nice list on page 15 of this thread illustrating your point, and a lot of progress HAS been made on the platform. I don't know why that keeps popping up every now and then as if KORG did nothing with the OASYS platform over the past decade or so.

[Kevin Nolan]

I think there are two points / debates regarding OASYS/Kronos development and we're slightly talking across purposes.

While there have been many exquisite additions and developments to Kronos, and indeed to Kronos over OASYS, there have been no developments in some underlying important regards - and indeed a significant retrograde step in terms of the physical interaction with this platform from OASYS to Kronos.


I'd suggest this:

1. The OASYS is a superior physical device, with respect to look, controllers and buttons, screen and I/O and so on

2. Kronos has had the addition of significant developments to Pianos, usability and work flow - SSD's, playlists, new pianos and so forth

3. There has been no development to the synthesizer engines or sequencer (OK there are more layers in HD1). Even during the life cycle of OASYS, we were all polled by Korg on how they would improve the sequencer, and then then implemented those changes in the M3, but not to the OASYS - and not even in Kronos. the M3 sequencer is superior to the Kronos Sequencer (features wise).

And THAT is the telling point. That move by Korg lead to a sizable backlash against OASYS which up until then had been regarded as only positive.

So it was about then that we could all see that the OASYS operating system, synthesizer engines and sequencer were all essentially 'frozen' - as in - there was no no more commitment to develop them, and literally, nobody in Korg doing any work on them - not on the agenda.

It has been that way ever since. Not one iota of true development of the OS, Synthesizer Engines, Sequencer or Karma in a decade, including on Kronos. Yes there have been tweaks - but no developmental cycles.


No denying the new piano engines on Kronos and other enhancements seen as significant to workflow - but- not one sample in HD1 has changed in a decade, and not one line of code has changed in CX-3, AL-1, MS20EX, PolySixEX, STR-1 or MOD-7, the sequencer, the GUI or the File system.


Furthermore - even during the life cycle of OASYS we volunteered - and on occasion were asked by Korg for - other suggestions and we produced lists of feature enhancements the length of our arm, and none were implemented but one - doubling the number of Program locations HAS been a welcome addition - a suggestion that comes directly from the OASYS suggestion box.


so the point is - the underlying technology and sonic character of Kronos, pianos aside, is 10-12 year old technology.

there literally are no people in Korg developing any new synth engines, sample sets or sequencer enhancements for Kronos - that developmental work is a decade over - lock, stock and barrel.


To boot - many of the suggestions made in the OASYS days were earnest and needed - but Korg weren't thinking that way. they had ended the developmental cycle for OASYS (and Kronos) in all of those regards.


So Kronos is an unusual instrument. It does not come from its own developmental cycle - it comes from OASYS - so aspects of it are never going to improve, that need improving. And to many, they are important.

I personally think that the filters in AL-1, MS20EX and PolySixEX could be improved, for example. But I could give you a list a mile long.

Overall from me by the way - no complaint. I'm not griping here - I love my two OASYS and thank Korg eternally for having the conviction to release such gargantuan instruments such as OASYS and Kronos. but that's not to say they are perfect (no instrument is) and any limitations I encounter are my own musical imagination and talent, and not the OASYS, I assure you.

But you've got to acknowledge that there is a significant dimension to Kronos which is exquisite, but dormant and 10 year old technology which will not change. Meanwhile, new instruments with current capabilities, arguably superior in some regards, have come along. For example, the JP80 virtual analogue filters are to die for and significantly better than anything in Kronos; Montage's performances are a smart development beyond Combi's; while SoundMondo and Montage's class complaint USB and 16 channel I/O all make it the perfect hardware extension to a DAW based environment for rapid and intense Media based composing. Kronos will not offer these arguably current requirements / expectations and is _slightly_ - just slightly - becoming a bit dated in these regards.

[DmitryKo]

I never implied that these synth companies should implement a Cubase like environment into their synth (actually this is something you seem to presume that I did)

I never said that they should hire their Cubase team in order the work on a synth/workstation sequencer (again this is something that you presume I did)

Yes, I did presume it. Desktop sequencers like Cubase look simple enough for the majority of musicians, so they should be a benchmark. I am not aware of hardware sequencers that match or exceed desktop software in terms of simplicity, usabilily and supported features (besides the already mentioned Fairlight CMI and Roland MV-8000).

a new synth like the Montage hits the floors that's supposed to replace the Motif line and that doesn't incorporate at least the same features

Again, new hardware platform, new proprietary OS, new user interface => the development restarts from the scratch.

new sound engines, SSD, SST, Setlist mode, the opening up of the system for user sample streaming and some other serious (and very useful) software updates ain't no significant development since the Oasys (or 2003, as you suggest), things that no other hardware synth on earth offers, than I really don't know, why I'm actually arguing with someone like you

These are only minor updates and bug fixes. "The opening up of the system for user sample streaming" probably took more effort to type than the actual change in the OS source code that enabled it.

If you think replacing HDD with a SSD is a significant new development of the OASYS/Kronos OS, I really don't have the desire to argue any further.

This is something you should suggest to Ray Kurzweil and other scientists.

I don't need Ray Kurzweil to expain me the meaning of "the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years".

all the big manufacters (Intel/AMD...) of pc parts are prepared to invest and they're still making profits. What's the point?

Their user base is 3 billion users, while Yamaha's user base is 300 thousand users, and the development costs for a new chip are the same.

this is why they plan to go 3 dimensial with their architecture in order to be able to stick to Moore's law. And your point is? Did you have to look at wikipedia for these things again?

"Monolithic 3D IC" is not realy "3-dimensional", rather multi-layer (2 to 4 layers) and it's still in development.
Today's "3D" circuits are a type of chip package containing vertically stacked dies, intended for DRAM and flash RAM chips. Individual dies are still fabricated with the usual process, so there is no cost benefit.

I can assure you that the majority of musicians is well aware of any development that takes place

In other words, you don't have any clue on the supposed vast technological improvements in tone generation that could be unlocked by Moore's law. Thank you very much for this uninteresting discussion.

[jimknopf]

I think we can differ (and in part differ heavily) in our views on the Kronos and the new Montage, and also name why, without having to get too upset towards each other.

In the end everybody will try/buy whatever he/she wants or needs.
These are just discussions about instruments.

[Kevin Nolan]

Agree ( my shortest post ever!)

- they are all amazing instruments actually !!

Kudos to all.