YamahaSynth.com Forums

This is the place to talk about all things related to Yamaha Synthesizers!
  1. Jason
  2. Sherlock Holmes The Voice
  3. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  4. Sunday, 15 September 2019
The thread on sequencers was getting heavy on other items (sampler, etc) - so it may be worthwhile to have a dedicated thread for comparing the two keyboards.

Just a few items to kick things off.

Fantom has a more fully capable on-board set of sequencers. Montage has a recorder with limitations and no editing.

Fantom has balanced audio inputs (my favorite XLR+1/4" TRS combo). Phantom power is supported and each channel (L and R) gets its own level trim. Montage has unbalanced audio inputs. No phantom supply. Level gain knob is applied equally to both L and R. Montage's knob is on the front face - Fantom is behind the keyboard. So probably not something you will use much on Fantom past set-it-and-forget-it.

Fantom has XLR audio outputs (my favorite cable for live use). Montage has balanced - but TRS

Fantom allows controlling all 16 zones with local keyboard. Montage allows only 8 zones under local keyboard control.
EDIT: worth noting that Fantom's zone, made up of a "Tone" can have 4 different "partials" - so some look at this as being the same as Montage since Montage's AWM2 supports 8 elements and if you see "partials" as elements - then 16x4 = 8x8. However, the difference is that all sounds on Fantom work with this - so a single zone is a fully-formed instrument which all are done within 4 partials while Montage gets 8 elements. I think, given this, it's a false equivalency - although worth mentioning. Both Fantom's PCM (sample) based engine and the virtual analog support 4 partials.

Fantom supports "seamless" type Performance switching with less limitations than Montage. Montage, and only when supported, you can only switch to one next Performance while holding the original sound. With Fantom, you can switch many times (seemingly unlimited - more than 5 as demonstrated) while the original sound is still sustained. Also, all 16 zones are supported. Fantom has no limitation based on zone usage - as Montage only allows the 1st 8 PARTs to be used by both the original and final Performances in a switch.

Fantom has a touchscreen operated joystick-like fader between 4 different sounds with ability to record a travel pattern. Montage has superknob which is different. You can realize the same sort of thing with appropriate programming - but also have superknob target many other parameters.

Fantom appears to have ability to chain performance equivalents. Closest Montage has is sequential position of Performances in live set and using footswitch to advance to next Live Set Performance. Maybe a wash here. Would have to learn more about Fantom to know advantage/disadvantage.

Fantom's GUI allows more "touch and drag" operations - which enables editing curves by "drawing" on the screen (such as ADSR envelopes, cutoff curves, etc). Montage doesn't have any touch/drag support so editing is done more indirectly (increase/decrease individual parameters).

Fantom's pitch wheel and possibly other controllers support 1024 values. Montage's pitch wheel supports 127 values. Use of Fantom's controllers results in less "stepping" - more smooth results than Montage. There's a thread on Montage's issues with pitch bend.

Fantom has some dedicated knobs for items which are typically "deep edit" items. Cutoff, Resonance, A/D/S/R, patch select. Montage you can assign different assignable knobs for some of this - but Fantom's more dedicated knobs integrate a bit differently with how different sounds can be selected to apply to their fixed-function knobs. Slightly more "dynamic" than Montage's approach for these functions.

Fantom has an engine supporting modeled pianos. Montage doesn't have this.

Fantom has a virtual analog engine. Montage doesn't have this - but FM-X is the trade - Montage has this and Fantom doesn't.

Fantom seems to have more knobs/buttons. There are the knobs similar to the assignable knobs in Montage under the faders. Then there are a set of knobs in Fantom below the touchscreen. These sport my favorite knob feature to have a push-button integrated so they take less space and can do more. There are the other knobs mentioned before for ADSR/etc. Then there are the pads which can take on many different modes (DAW control, sample playback, etc).

Fantom has tight integration with Mainstage where the Mainstage screen will "show up" on Fantom. You can see the VSTi controls on the Fantom screen. Montage's integration is less. More geared towards having Montage (knobs and sliders) controllers assigned to controlling different things in your DAW - but no other integration.

Fantom ... there's also vapor-ware "rumors". Where reviewers mention that more synth engines are to come in future updates. Not sure what will come of that. Montage does have this - a rumor of a new engine in the future. Relatively speaking, Fantom already starts with more engines.

Fantom has CV/Gate outs. Montage doesn't have this.

Fantom has more aux audio outs. Helpful for click track and other uses. One extra output compared to Montage.

Fantom supports 3 USB ports for external MIDI USB-MIDI controllers. Montage doesn't have this. Technically, the USB port for Montage is for flash drives only.

Fantom has 2 MIDI outs (or 1 out and 1 thru). More possibilities perhaps integrating with external gear. Montage has 1 MIDI out.

Fantom has a joystick control (pitch and mod in one controller) or wheels. Montage has wheels.

Fantom has a sampler built-in. You can edit loop points and such. Montage doesn't have any sampler features. Currently, Fantom doesn't support sampling/editing multisamples on board. The sampler is "dumbed down" to only support loading in one-shot samples for the multi-pads. The keyboard has a lot of beefy support for audio input (balanced inputs, phantom power, XLR or TRS) - "expensive" stuff to only support pad-triggered samples. The vaporware promise/rumor is that multisample editing is to come later. I would think, given what's there, this seems like a reasonable thing to anticipate. That said, Roland's track record of firmware updates and support-after-the-sale has not been stellar. As many complaints I've seen against Montage on this front, Yamaha did a great job of delivering. So great that I think it started to setup an expectation of ultra-frequent updates. I would say relatively, Yamaha (Montage) wins in this category although there's no real data on Fantom yet.

Yes, none of these matter if the keyboard sounds like a tin can stuck the bottom of your shoe. Fantom's V-piano engine sounds great to me. The synth sounds are Roland - they have a characteristic sound I do not personally gravitate towards (which is why I've gone the Yamaha path). But they sound fine and balanced with the other sounds. I think the sound is no slouch and there is vapor-ware promises of updates to bring more/different sounds to the table where the current release sounds are more derivative of past products.

There are more differences to possibly highlight. Those are the main ones I can think of to start the ball rolling.
Responses (126)
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation

But first things first, I think a new VA engine is most likely what we'll see in the next update. Although, at this point, I wouldn't put anything past Yamaha, as 4.0 may be their greatest feature/enhancement filled update yet, and they may come through with far more than anyone would have guessed...


Would love this to be true, but I don't think there's enough horsepower in the Montage to do VA and incorporate it with the filters, envelopes, effects and motion control. I think this horsepower limitation is also the reason for the relatively simplistically shaped ADSR envelopes... far less computationally expensive than curved and customisable ADSR envelopes... two things that are super useful with VA, too.

From my limited Assembly and C knowledge, and even lesser DSP knowledge, everything I see in the Montage/MODX is designed to be as efficient as possible on the CPU, and the differences in polyphony and effects between the Montage to MODX map closely to the lesser powered chipset's reduction in hp. So they might well be close to what's possible.

As to them making an iPad app... if they didn't start making it 3 year ago, it's not going to make it into the world in the lifetime of these products. Look at SoundMondo, and that's a relatively simple web app posing as an app... they don't have the software skills. Nor, seemingly, the ability to outsource successfully (see this website and forum and the ever failing links and logins).
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@Andrew
Folks joke about the little Raspberry-Pie like CPUs in the latest Korg WaveState, WaveMod and their FM thingy... wait until they bring out a master keyboard and workstation with all these engines in them... probably with just chained up small CPUs, meaning unique polyphony for each engine, and efficient production and servicing, and the ability to do modular firmware updates of each engine independent for the others.


I'm sure Korg have something big up their sleeve as well that will replace the Kronos, maintain all the current engines & functionality, as well as add new ones. And it will likely be far more powerful in terms of CPUs, but they will also have to weigh the cost of CPUs, so while the polyphony will likely be far greater, realistically I can't see them giving each engine it's own CPU (plus they may add additional engines with a new hardware model).

Korg could name their next new workstation/synth the 'Kong' and if they were smart enough to release a light version of it at half the weight & cost in order to compete with the MODX, they could call it the 'KongyX' or 'DonkeyKong' :p



Yamaha has missed a trick ... and taking a gamble on not needing to make a workstation grade marquee product, wherein they thought they could get away with a rather crap touchscreen in the era of the iPad. Might have been true if they came out with a killer iPad companion app. They didn't.

All they really need do is make a companion DAW that's fun to use on an iPad and has great patch editing for the Montage and MODX (because that's NOT fun on the resistance touch screen with that Yamaha "OS";), and add a step sequencer tailored to the extraordinary powers of the Yamaha arpeggiator, so it's not a complete pain to make dynamic, creative user arpeggios for the most powerful arpeggiator in a hardware device, and they'll have made a legend that can live on until well after the release of the next Korg benchmark synth workstation...

That seems like a great idea to be added to IdeaScale, if it hasn't already: https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com
Create a Montage/MODX Companion App for iPad

Also, I am a bit surprised that I don't see many new ideascale ideas requesting a Step Sequencer. I'm sure that idea is already up there from a year or two ago, but maybe there are enough people who would still see it as a make or break feature!?
I would never use it myself, as I don't use the current new sequencer either since my workflow is 100% DAW and all my sequencing, ARPs, etc. are via Pro Tools; However seeing what the Roland are currently doing with adding new Engines at a crazy pace, it might be wise for Yamaha to flip the script & get people who may have once said 'no' to the Montage (or MODX) because it didn't have a Step Sequencer, to change their minds, by adding a Step Sequencer!?

But first things first, I think a new VA engine is most likely what we'll see in the next update. Although, at this point, I wouldn't put anything past Yamaha, as 4.0 may be their greatest feature/enhancement filled update yet, and they may come through with far more than anyone would have guessed...
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It appears that Roland decided to use Yamaha's new roadmap strategy of keeping customers happy & costs down by extending the hardware life

I thought Yamaha was emulating Korg with this approach... :D


To a certain extent you are right, in terms of extending the life of the hardware (although the Kronos has had several variations in hardware over the past 10 years) ... I don't think the Kronos is getting new features & enhancements at the rate that the Montage/MODX are getting them. Now Roland are taking a page from Yamaha's roadmap and releasing new features, enhancements & engines at a much faster rate than Yamaha is. So it will be very interesting to see what Yamaha might have in their back pocket as a response to Roland! ;)

However, while I eat my popcorn & enjoy the show (& any possible benefits that may come from it), I will also remain fully satisfied with my Montage & continue to enjoy it... :)
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@tolga The Kronos' lifetime steamrolls your argument.

Still selling a few units because it's a fully blown workstation (10+ years later!!!) is proving that idea wrong, as is the quality of the hardware. And they can now rest on it while they figure out if there's ever again going to be a touring musicians world to target, or if it's all at home and studio from now on, while they churn out ever more interesting mini synths...

btw, it's using an Atom CPU that was old and crap and underpowered at the time of release...

Folks joke about the little Raspberry-Pie like CPUs in the latest Korg WaveState, WaveMod and their FM thingy... wait until they bring out a master keyboard and workstation with all these engines in them... probably with just chained up small CPUs, meaning unique polyphony for each engine, and efficient production and servicing, and the ability to do modular firmware updates of each engine independent for the others.

The Fantom is defeating your argument, and the insane ease of use it offers for production endeavours, and seemingly endless expandability with the massively deep and wide integration of the ZenCore engine, which also spreads across many devices and formats of the Roland range, feeding back and up and around.

The Akai MPC range defeats your argument, which has just received a massive update, for a range that starts out barely cheaper than a good workstation, and more costly than a Mac Mini with a screen and DAW.

Have you seen the second hand price of Elektron gear? They're defeating your argument, too.

The M1 Chip, itself, defeats your argument, in a round about way, as it's proof that cheap, modern mobile processors not hampered by legacy operating systems and compatibility requirements can be immensely powerful, even without a fan, even running on a battery in a slim screen sized device!

Yamaha has missed a trick by somewhat under-powering the Montage, and taking a gamble on not needing to make a workstation grade marquee product, wherein they thought they could get away with a rather crap touchscreen in the era of the iPad. Might have been true if they came out with a killer iPad companion app. They didn't.

And Cubasis isn't nearly it.

Shame, really, as there's an ideal space to the right of the buttons on the Montage 8 (and MODX 7 & 8) to rest an iPad.

Fortunately, for Yamaha, the MODX has been selling well, and is priced right for what it is, an incredible value instrument.

All they really need do is make a companion DAW that's fun to use on an iPad and has great patch editing for the Montage and MODX (because that's NOT fun on the resistance touch screen with that Yamaha "OS";), and add a step sequencer tailored to the extraordinary powers of the Yamaha arpeggiator, so it's not a complete pain to make dynamic, creative user arpeggios for the most powerful arpeggiator in a hardware device, and they'll have made a legend that can live on until well after the release of the next Korg benchmark synth workstation... buying them time to think, too...
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Hey, hey...leave my Fantom alone, please.

And well out and far from any disappearing chances.

Montage and Fantom are onboard that unsinkable ship...

Also, my keyboard is not the place where dust go to die, and yours?
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I liked hardware units over software and DAW all the time but I’m afraid we will not see more hardware units ( epecially workstations like Kronos and Fantom) maybe in next ten years. Companies are now more conservative on creating new hardwares as they come with software updates. if you you have used new apple m1 silicon chip you can believe in me. The new chips has extremely strong near zero latency , very very low power consumption and very strong CPU power. For example you can play up to 20 layers of keyscape piano without any corruption. Moreover without power supply, I can study on heavy intense Logic project over 10 hours. Performance synths like montage and modx maybe survive over time but workstations like Kronos and fantom will be on the dusty shelf of history.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
It appears that Roland decided to use Yamaha's new roadmap strategy of keeping customers happy & costs down by extending the hardware life

I thought Yamaha was emulating Korg with this approach... :D
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I too am quite happy with what I've got & don't expect more OS updates/features. At the same time it is interesting to compare different products and the strategies used by those companies. It appears that Roland decided to use Yamaha's new roadmap strategy of keeping customers happy & costs down by extending the hardware life, only spending on software engineering, and adding/providing new features/enhancements via OS/firmware updates.
This creates hype and marketing opportunities for promoting their products, puts pressure on Yamaha to respond with new features/enhancements via an OS Update, gets people talking/thinking/comparing on forums, and in the end it's a Win Win for us customers. We already have a top notch awesome Synth & each time they add more to it, it's a bonus, because some of the things they add are quite useful...
You will get some people griping, whether it's because they want a feature in their keyboard that the other keyboard has, or whatever the reason. You will also have some interesting discussions & some fun speculation too.

But in the end, any OS updates extend the life of the Synth, and with major feature/enhancements, it's basically like getting a free new Synth, but without having to change the hardware or re-learn how to program or operate the synth. I don't care for the onboard sequencer or the FM Morphing technology that they gave us in previous OS updates, as that isn't useful for me, but I get why Yamaha added those features ... and for my purposes, I've already made good use out of some of the new effects and features from the last major OS update, especially KBD CTRL in Scenes, the Wave Folder effect, saving songs with a Performance in Live Set and Extended LFO.

So it will be fun & interesting to see what Yamaha adds to the Montage/MODX before the end of this month!! :p (...that's my prediction & I'm sticking to it ;) )
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Failed metaphor or not I'll just keep making music, happy with what I've got and not constantly asking for more.

My point is I got what I paid for and am happy with that. I have no problem with people requesting new features and am grateful when manufacturers provide them.

What I don't like is the constant griping from some quarters that the product is bad beacause it doesn't have feature X or Y and that the manufacturer is abusing it's customers by not adding them.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I'm happy with both my Montage 6 and my Fantom 7.

Are they both perfect? No but I don't expect every instrument I buy to have exactly the same features as another.

I find it a bit tedious when people buy something and complain that it doesn't suit their purpose.

It's never been easier to research products, watch videos and listen to sounds. Back in the day we had to actually go into a music shop and try the thing out!

My Renault doesn't have the same spec as an Aston Martin but I don't complain and expect Renault to upgrade it.

Buy what you need/want and don't complain if it doesn't fit your workflow. Either change your workflow or buy something else.


Your failed metaphor conveniently ignores the significance of firmware, and firmware updates as continuing service to existing customers, and the value of using updates as an increasing potential attractant of new customers across a product's lifespan, justifying its continued pricing without discounts, and firmware feature addition as a brand building enterprise with existing customers providing confidence for them to be future early adopters of new products, and all of what these mean to both products and their markets.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I'm happy with both my Montage 6 and my Fantom 7.

Are they both perfect? No but I don't expect every instrument I buy to have exactly the same features as another.

I find it a bit tedious when people buy something and complain that it doesn't suit their purpose.

It's never been easier to research products, watch videos and listen to sounds. Back in the day we had to actually go into a music shop and try the thing out!

My Renault doesn't have the same spec as an Aston Martin but I don't complain and expect Renault to upgrade it.

Buy what you need/want and don't complain if it doesn't fit your workflow. Either change your workflow or buy something else.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
This would be the Yamaha advantage. If Roland's key range must be Range Lo<=Range Hi.

Yamaha allows for Lo>Hi - and when Lo>Hi - the range is "inverted" (notes from lowest note through Hi - which is the lower value, and also Lo through highest note) where the range is more defining a "dead zone" in the middle. The advantage is that you can notch out a range and have the same sound on either side of this "hole"
Practically speaking, I'm not sure I see that as a functional advantage. If you wanted to do that on a Fantom, you should just be able to use one part to assign a sound to a certain key range, and use another part to assign the same sound to another (non-contiguous) key range. Almost any board that lets you assign different sounds to different key ranges also lets you assign the same sound to more than one key range. The only advantage to this Yamaha approach to the latter that I can see is that it takes fewer parts, but especially since I think the Fantom supports 16 keyboard assignable parts (compared to 8 on the Yamaha, typically), I don't think running out of parts is likely to be an issue to worry about.

Fantom = 9 synthesis engines (Sampler, PCM Rompler, Supernatural, V-Piano, VA, 4 x Model Expansions)
Counting engines is not straight-forward. But sampler is not a separate sound engine from rompler, it's the same sound engine, applied to either built in or to additional samples. The 4 model expansions are arguably all the same VA engine, with different "skins" so to speak, to make them appear and behave more like this vintage model or that, but that could be debated, I suppose. The SuperNATURAL Acoustic add-ons are interesting, because--kind of opposite to what I said about the VA model expansions--the specifics of the underlying modeling technologies could conceivably vary quite a bit. The modeling algorithms that are part of SuperNATURAL piano, for example, would presumably be notably different from the algorithms that are part of SuperNATURAL brass or whatever. The Integra-7 "SuperNATURAL Acoustic" section included their modeled tonewheel organ as well as the hybrid sampled/modeled EPs, and there's probably almost nothing in common in the engineering of those sounds other than they include some kind of modeling. So if you were to count every different category of SuperNATURAL instrument emulation as its own engine (strings, brass, whatever), which I think is defensible, you have quite a few engines there! But ultimately, to some extent, it's about the results, If you like Roland's piano better than Yamaha's or vice versa, it doesn't matter who programmed their piano with its own engine vs. who used an existing sound engine for their piano.

In terms of the basic technologies, Yamaha is using AWM2 (sampling) and FM-X (FM). Roland does seem to be using a greater number of different sound generating approaches... though they don't have FM, and their straight sampling engine seems less capable (with Yamaha supporting 8 elements per part and multiple parts per instrument, whereas I believe Roland's straight sampled sounds use the equivalent of only up to 4 elements per instrument). But with their various additional modeled sound generating mechanisms (V-piano, virtual analog, superNATURAL modeling), their system offers different advantages, depending on the kinds of sounds you're after. As always, I think people are likely to find some sounds they prefer on one and other sounds they prefer on the other.

ETA: Roland actually does seem to have some amount of FM capability as well, since they permit one partial (their equivalent to an element) to act as a modulator and another as a carrier, though it's not nearly as extensive an FM system as Yamaha's dedicated FM engine.
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Many months back I had predicted on other forums that Yamaha would release OS 4.0 for the Montage (& 3.0 for the MODX) in early July, 2021.

Well, although I don't expect anything from Yamaha & I'm perfectly happy with my Montage, it's always fun to speculate, and so I think my prediction may be coming true soon! :D
And if so, some thanks goes to Roland for the push, as they just released Fantom 2.5 firmware, whereby they added yet another Engine (Virtual Tonewheel Organ). As per my prediction, I think Yamaha will introduce a new VA Engine, as well as many new effects and features/functionality. Maybe even provide their C7 Piano!? (realistically, I can see them saving this one for a later date, but then again 4.0 could be a big one!)
I think Yamaha would be smart to add more functionality to Scenes, such as the ability to turn Elements Off/On. I think they would be smart to provide a new Tonewheel Organ effect that uses some of the technology from their YC keyboards. They would do well to provide a new Piano effect that provides new enhanced piano emulation of pedal noise/release, resonance, etc. I don't think we necessarily need new 'Engines', when they could likely provide most of this within new insertion 'effects'!
I would not be shocked to see major enhancements to the sequencer or even adding an second different type of sequencer!?
I could also see them adding a new colored Montage to the mix (maybe even a different colored MODX this time)!? Did anyone say 'Blue', 'Purple' or 'Hot Pink'..? :p

If this does happen soon, it would be quite fitting that Yamaha did so for the second time in 2 years, a few weeks after Roland released big things, like in September 2019 ... just a couple of months shy of being 2 years later!!

Anyway, that's my prediction and speculation. It will be interesting to see how &/or when Yamaha responds to Roland's latest firmware release! ;)
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Fantom = 9 synthesis engines (Sampler, PCM Rompler, Supernatural, V-Piano, VA, 4 x Model Expansions)

I am waiting for a new additional engine in my MODX (but please no organs) :)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 14
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Further... I think the FM-X and Motion Sequencer put the Montage/MODX in an entirely different class of sound designer tool than we've ever seen before in hardware.

And that Yamaha should embrace the complex programming and geeking required to grok what's possible and start exploring and creating within it.

It's one thing to explain how FM works. It's an entirely different macro and meta level to explain how (and imbue comprehension of) the creative enormity that FM-X + Motion Sequencer + Effects Control brings to sound design.

It is a sort of linking based visual programming.

And whilst I'm not a full-time programmer, I know several coding languages quite well. Yet that's not helpful for this, because it's much more like designing dynamic and responsive visual effects within a combination of particle system and post processing than it is like "programming" per se.

So it can be taught, probably relatively easily, because most of the abstractions are surfaced through the UI. The biggest downside is the lack of visual representation of resultant values from the Motion Sequencers modding them. That little blackhole is a bit annoying at first, and slowly becomes infuriating as more complex efforts are made to link and mod parameters.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
@Jason, yes....

Agree... it's an interesting first step to "morphing intelligently" whatever that means.

it's got all those new fangled catch phrasery stuff hanging off it "AI, Deep Learning, Machine Intelligence" guff that everyone is spewing out, without there being much truth to that.

Yamaha couldn't even come up with a compelling usage demo of the feature when announcing it. Just yammering on about how "cool" it is and how incredible the morphing deep sense of it all is, and how it's computing and figuring out stuff. etc.

Worse, I've not seen anyone since using it in a musical or even interesting manner that doesn't suffer from that horrendous aliasing, nor anyone finding a way to make that aliasing useful or fit in with something else.

Not sure there's enough processing power in the Montage/MODX to do this kind of parameter morphing fast enough to get rid of the aliasing issues.

Further, even in my own experimentations with the FM-X morphing within sound effect design and random experimentation, it's not been anymore beneficial than doing everything methodically, manually and an in a labour intensive focused manner. I haven't managed to get morphing to produce any 'magic' sounds. Just differentness, and that's in the realm of sound effect design, where sometimes differentness can just randomly be good... yet that just hasn't happened, not even once.

It reeks of a "because we can" without a "why should it be?" line of questioning wrapping around the design of it that might have made it into something commonly useful and controllably creative.

And it's even odder when you think how much unused firepower exists in the fact that almost nobody has been busily figuring out how to use even a significant portion of the Motion Sequencer's prowess with 8 Operators of FM-X.

Surely getting a few sound designers busy with the Motion Sequencer, Effects and FM-X will lead to hitherto unheard signature level sound developments, and demonstrations of the potential of the Motion Sequencer.

I'm not nearly a sound designer, let alone good at it, and I'm getting some amazing results with super simple FM algorithms and the Motion Sequencer modding and messing with various aspects of the operators.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 16
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
This is deviating a bit from the subject - but if FM-X morph is a platform for things to come, a higher resolution smart morph of VA or AN engine would be cool and maybe a similar randomizer system. Higher resolution to get rid of those aliasing issues. And also better than single-straight-line automation. I think it's a good start for all of its perceived shortcomings.

It's also only newish (or a new spin) as older keyboards had parameter morphing features too (EX5's scene morphing).
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 17
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
On the FM-X "morph" function...

Whilst it's somewhat interesting, the aliasing is horrendous, when morphing, and much of what it makes is closer to random than musical.

I can see why it can be done, I'm not sure that it's beneficial for much more than noise making experimental 'music'.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 18
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 19
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE Series Synthesizers
  3. # 20


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
2021 © Yamaha Corporation of America and Yamaha Corporation. All rights reserved.