Montage by Yamaha

[Kevin Nolan]

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.

[JPWC]

Thanks for the pragmatic voice Kevin. You are wholely correct, why would we want Yamaha to make a Kronos? Two of the same keyboard is fun, yet two different keyboards is more fun.

[GregC]

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.

the jury is still out if the differences are worth it.

[SanderXpander]

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.

[marc1]

Kevin, I agree. I also think differences are important. But I personnaly feel that the Montage doesn't add enough diversity (soundwise) in order to justify another 3 grand. Heck, many of the AWM2 sounds (or rather samples) I probably already have. They are included with HalionOne, which shipped with Cubase 5 in 2009. I know it's not quite the same as owning a Motif, though, but if I would really opt for that sound I would go for a Moxf and probably still get the same DAW integration (if not better) as with the Montage.

FM? I know it's one of Yamaha's proprietary technologies, but adding this along with another sampled piano (ok, two) and some updated strings and flutes doesn't really do it (at least for me). You wonder why people keep comparing it to the Kronos. Well the reason is quite simple, it costs the same amount of money. It's only natural for people then, to start comparing them (especially on a Korg forum).

I have to say, though, that you were probably right concerning the functionality of the Super Knob. The more I look at it, the more I feel that Yamaha really invested some smart ideas into the Montage design. The whole control surface looks well laid out and easier to handle than the Karma control area on the Kronos (which looks more technical and complex).

[Kevin Nolan]

Have to agree - while I think Yamaha have made an excellent re-entry into 'synthesis' - they could arguably have been a tad more adventurous with their synth engines, given what sits inside each Reface, as well as their legacy of synthesis types sitting there untapped - VL, AN, RCM, FDSP.

However - despite sample based engines never 'pushing my buttons' I suspect that the presence of 6 GB of sample data on this thing is going to make it a bit special. That's quite a lot of sample data even by today's sample library standards (given the smart and efficient programming that usually accompanies sample based engines on hardware workstations).

I have a hunch that that gargantuan AWM engine is going to make up the difference - and let's not forget that, if the rest of the AWM engine is based on Motif and MOX, will be in essence a full fledged VA synth engine. Motif and MOX never really did anything for me - except their filters which sound really nice to me.

On a related note - I love the filters on both the JP80 and as said Motif, and as much as I adore my OASYS, I feel the filters on the HD1 and AL-1 engines in particular are bit 'tight' or 'close' by comparison to the JP80 and Motif. I'd like to see a filter update on the Kronos engines to be honest - I think they could do with being a bit silkier or broader.

[Bachus]

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..

[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).

[Bachus]

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).

Would have loved to see that..

But they can not do taht as long as they stick to their current selfcreated hardware platform .... Its lacking processingpower...


Thats the only reason Yamaha is not making a hardware workstation, they are unable to compete with Korg featurewise..


Its funny to see how many people accept their marketing talk, about consumers not wanting all those tools anymore in a workstation because of DAWs...

Maybe its me, but creating music behind a keyboard is 1000 times more fun then sitting behind a daw...

[Ksynth]

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).

Would have loved to see that..

But they can not do taht as long as they stick to their current selfcreated hardware platform .... Its lacking processingpower...


Thats the only reason Yamaha is not making a hardware workstation, they are unable to compete with Korg featurewise..


Its funny to see how many people accept their marketing talk, about consumers not wanting all those tools anymore in a workstation because of DAWs...

Maybe its me, but creating music behind a keyboard is 1000 times more fun then sitting behind a daw...

The Kronos is built on a very low cost mobo that Yamaha could easily outdo (I wish Korg had used a more powerful CPU/mobo etc)

Other audio stuff in the Kronos may be generic. I'm not sure if that is the case.

[SanderXpander]

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

[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.

[Kevin Nolan]

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 .

[Bachus]

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

[SanderXpander]

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.