Hello YAMAHA !

Well, i use TG77 for lots of music compositions since summer 1991.
i want to be the first customer of the VSTi version of this superb Yamaha AFM+AWM hardware synth.
i began a forum subject in french since 2007.
i found some other VST of my hardwares ( Roland MT32, D50... )
so i am waiting for the EVENEMENT !
So that even if my hardware synth become unstable / unusable ( no SAV.... ) i can believe to do with exact original timbres and sys.ex patches precisely of TG77 in my sequences.
Not any synth can do any other synth patch... even with fine editing, this is an absolute rule.
Only the VSTi from the hardware can do it. YOU WILL do it....

I am waiting for this VSTI! PLEASE, send me more informations. I am volunteer for tests and more. I am from Brasil.

This appears to be a wish with no indications that Yamaha is entertaining providing any virtualized synth emulated in software. The original message from Reza is difficult to decode.

As far as I know - there's not much to follow up with except for the open door to make requests to Ideascale and track any progress there.

There are already similar requests to watch:

https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Yamaha-VST-Instrument-with-all-Yamaha-Sounds/244054-45978
https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/a/dtd/VSTi-versions-of-Yamaha-Classics/210109-45978
https://yamahasynth.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Yamaha-Equivalent-of-Korg-Legacy-Collection/209312-45978

The definition of VSTi includes hardware synthesizers. Not to pour water on anyone’s burning dream but when you understand what Virtual Studio Technology really is, you understand that VST (a Steinberg innovation from 1996) was designed to introduce external instruments and effect processors into the world of the DAW recording environment.

Many think that a VSTi means “software synthesizers”. Truth is, while VST includes software synthesizers, it is not restricted to them, by any means. The term ’external instruments and effect processors’ applies to any device other than the DAW program itself.

In fact, the only difference in sending a Cubase MIDI Track to a plug-in VST Instrument and sending it to an SY77, is a matter of “routing”.
In order to turn any external hardware synthesizers into a VSTi, you need a two-way MIDI connection, a way to return the synthesizer’s audio to the DAW (audio interface), and, in the case of Steinberg DAWs, you need Cubase Pro.

It is Cubase Pro that allows EXTERNAL INSTRUMENT and EXTERNAL EFFECT routing among the STUDIO > AUDIO CONNECTIONS
This is essential in setting up the routing scenario… data travels from the Cubase MIDI Track to the synth engine (be it software or hardware); the synth engine (whether real or virtual) returns audio signal to the VSTi AUDIO LANE, where you can hear the returning audio… you can process it with other plugin effects, and you monitor it.
In a separate operation, you can turn this “virtual” audio into “real” audio using Export Audio Mixdown… (render audio).

ADVANTAGES:
You get all the benefits of a soft synth plugin (patch storage, total recall, all data concerning the Project is stored together in the DAW file, ability to process the returning audio with VST Effect plugins, the ability to Render Audio, Freeze, and Export Audio Mixdown); minimal load on your computers CPU, you can use the external synth’s own Effects and EQ further enhancing your processing capability — the external synth is like co-processor.

In reality, running the actual SY77 RCM engine on the same computer with anything else would be very CPU heavy; running synth’s as powerful or even more powerful than the SY was elegantly solved by the engineers at Steinberg back in 1996… (one of the reasons Yamaha purchased the company in late 2004… bi-platform innovation).

Many of Yamaha’s synths use custom chips (Yamaha chips) that have a lot to do with what and certainly how they do their thing… thinking the computer, which is your recorder (in addition to everything else), can also be an SY77 — even all this time later…
The way to do it is -> Learn to use the EXTERNAL HARDWARE function as found in Cubase (top of the line) software since the late 1990’s
And as this site is dedicated to - What you can do right now (rather than a ‘wishing well’)… if you want VSTi like convenience, you can do so, now.

If your goal is to eliminate the hardware entirely (if that is your only reason for requesting a VSTi) we can’t really help you.
If your goal is to be able to have multiple 16-Part, multi-timbral SY77s (yes it is possible to open multiple instances of the SY77 VSTi, by using the FREEZE function in Cubase - this creates temporary audio files and mutes the MIDI Track, allowing you to reuse the hardware for additional tracking...

This is a standard request that we get… why doesn’t Yamaha put out a plugin version of the SY77 for (like) $99 and then I don’t have to spend the $2995 for the hardware? Because we’re not crazy (lol)… and that wouldn’t happen because that is not how it works. Besides the experience of well constructed instrument still appeals to keyboard players (a plastic/fantastic control keyboard, a USB cable and a pretty graphic picture of synth engine front panel on your computer monitor, is okay for some, but a physical instrument is, well… if you don’t get, no description will do it justice.

__ Let’s add that to the list of advantages: you might very well power up your SY77, today, 32 years after its release, and play it. Any thing you ran on a computer 32 years ago would require a forensic computer geek to even boot up. The SY77 is an instrument, a soft-synth is a virtual instrument (lol).

Yes. The hardware VSTi requires you have the hardware.
Think of VST — Virtual Studio Technology — as a routing scheme to include items external to the DAW itself… be that elsewhere on the computer or physically external and connected by cabling.
I mentioned VST Effects — the same type of routing scenario can be setup for all your old classic hardware rack mount effects using Cubase Pro.
The creation of VST (Virtual Studio Technology) changed the playing field for computer based music…. Dare I say it, it was an essential ingredient in making computer-based recording appealing to professional studios the world over.

VST Originally developed to include hardware, not replace it.
Now, if you are interested in the SY77 sound making capability… those folks who know the SY best have created the MONTAGE and it’s cost down version the MODX… clearly, the “best of” rethink of AWM2 and Frequency Modulation. It drives the company (which is all about ‘new ideas’…and pushing things forward). Perhaps if/when the engineers run out of ideas we can put $99 versions of our previous hits, but fortunately (imho) we ain’t there yet.

And yes, these two can be setup as VSTi within today’s current version of Cubase Pro.

If your goal is to eliminate the hardware entirely (if that is your only reason for requesting a VSTi) we can’t really help you.
[...]
This is a standard request that we get… why doesn’t Yamaha put out a plugin version of the SY77 for (like) $99 and then I don’t have to spend the $2995 for the hardware? Because we’re not crazy (lol)… and that wouldn’t happen because that is not how it works.

It does work for most of your competition and this is how they keep those sounds (and, more important, their brand) in the spotlight for a ton of current users that have zero inclination to spend lots of money on legacy hardware. But who might develop that inclination (and sympathy for a brand) if they have the opportunity to know those sounds via software.

Now, if you are interested in the SY77 sound making capability… those folks who know the SY best have created the MONTAGE and it’s cost down version the MODX… clearly, the “best of” rethink of AWM2 and Frequency Modulation. It drives the company (which is all about ‘new ideas’…and pushing things forward).

I like my MODX more than any of my software synths.
I also admire Yamaha for their capability (and interest, in the first place) of still bringing an innovative hardware platform on the market, as opposed to their competition that seems content with putting out very well executed performance machines that add absolutely nothing new, sonically (cough, Fantom, cough).
I also think software instruments are an interesting field, Yamaha is absent from it and your competition isn't.

Perhaps if/when the engineers run out of ideas we can put $99 versions of our previous hits, but fortunately (imho) we ain’t there yet.

Software instruments is an innovative field.
Seeing it as an exclusive option to the hardware synths might not be a good idea in the first place.

No doubt, true that.

Yamaha is the world’s largest manufacturer of musical instruments. I only mention that because there is a longevity to purchasing a musical instrument, that is not inherent in software instruments which you don’t purchase, you really just subscribe to them… sooner or later the computer can run them any more (your subscription runs out).

They have a place, no doubt. No argument there. And I don’t have a problem with them… their reason to exist does not have to be argued. They definitely have a very secure place in the music making future. Yamaha gave away an app called FM ESSENTIAL — a 4-Op software synth… and for some that is about as deep into FM as they dare go, but fortunately, for us synth geeks, that is not only strategy to keep older sounds in the public consciousness— hey, if you need the “Lately” bass synth sound… or a classic FM Epiano, the little 4-Op freebie is just what the doctored ordered. Fun, Free, and a great learning tool… and like most Yamaha stuff, can be taken seriously!

…and one thing about being in the position as leading musical instrument manufacturer is the commitment to pushing the tech forward. And yet avoiding the inevitable “non-compliance” warning you will receive as your computer obsoletes your soft synth instrument. This may all change, and future musicians may find tapping on a glass tablet with a picture of keys showing, the thing to do (yikes)… but manufacturing musical instruments is what got Yamaha to where they are… the products have a design team that sweats the details to make something worthy of keeping and performing on.

They sweat every detail down to the internal cable runs, efficiency, and overall playability as an instrument. Consistency in performance. The play response doesn’t depend on how many other things you’re doing with your computer at the moment. The piano sound responds the same when it’s the first Track or the fiftieth Track

(I don’t want to get into the argument about which is actually less expensive, hardware/software, if it takes a $2000+ computer, a monitor, etc., to run a software synth, doesn’t that get factored into the price some how?)
A really CPU hogging synthesizer engine is better off with its own dedicated CPU, versus one that might have an essential chipset eliminated from the host computer, by the computer’s manufacturer.

I think the reface-series, as mini-key hardware rethinks of previous products was much more fun and, obviously, longer lasting than if they were just available as software plugins. Many misunderstood this when they first hit the market, yet here we are six years later and they still sell like crazy. They function as instruments wherever you go. (And there are no “cracked copies” in the computer-speak).

If I were “the competition” I might be doing what they are, but I’m glad that isn’t the case — these are my own opinions, of course, and may not reflect any corporate goal or direction. But just me expressing why I love what I do… for a company committed to music, technology, and enjoyment of same.

I agree with a lot of what you say.

However,

…and one thing about being in the position as leading musical instrument manufacturer is the commitment to pushing the tech forward.

the tech today and the instrument today is also the software one.
So pushing the instrument tech might mean ALSO being present in that field.
To put it differently, I'm not "criticizing" Yamaha for what they are doing, which I think is great.
But there are some things that I feel they should be doing and they aren't (yet).

And in the end, they are the owners of one of the best DAWs on the market, so...
(which reminds me of my IdeaScale suggestion of having a much better integration between Montage/MODX and Cubase/Nuendo instead of the limited Mackie protocol.)

(I don’t want to get into the argument about which is actually less expensive, hardware/software, if it takes a $2000+ computer, a monitor, etc., to run a software synth, doesn’t that get factored into the price some how?)

Well, the computer you need anyway (at least to record and mix).
It was Yamaha after all who pushed the idea of getting rid of workstation features and use the DAW for sequencing (a good idea, I might add, despite a vocal minority claiming otherwise).

So if you buy the computer anyway, the difference becomes between the price of the MODX/Montage and the price of the software synth (a lot of those are actually free).

Incidentally, I think the price comparison is favourable to the MODX, but not everybody would agree.

My fav software synth, UVI Falcon, costs 350EUR. Omnisphere is 600+ EUR. Halion is also around 350EUR (I'm talking about powerful software synths that compare as a toolset to a MODX or a similar workstation).

I got my MODX6 for less than 3x the price of Falcon (and is also less than 2x the price of Omnisphere).
For that I get a synthesizer that competes with flagship software synths, a powerful MIDI controller (so this saves some other 200EUR), a great DAW remote controller and a decent audio interface. Not to mention that the synthesizer "feature" works standalone, without the need to power up any computer (a "feature" that I use quite a bit).

Not bad at all, from my POV.
Still 3x the price of Falcon, some might say.