The Fantom-0, MODX's direct competition, has sampling and a more complete (or, at least, more traditional) sequencer. I haven't seen someone do a comparison of the Fantom vs Fantom-0 to tease out what exactly are the differences.

One review says:

They [meaning Fantom-0] don’t quite have all the connections on the back and you can use fewer multisamples per instrument. Oh, and no analogue filter or aftertouch.

A competitive instrument hasn't wildy changed Yamaha's products. The introduction of the Fantom (original, non-zero) didn't have a huge impact on Montage. Maybe on advancing pitch bend resolution. Maybe on placing pressure on the sequencer story. Now that there's a more affordable version of the full-blown Fantom this means more users will have it. So perhaps that can help amplify the need for some form of response given what one would project about the numbers.

We'll see.

If you do have a Montage and want a lightweight counterpart - it seems the Fantom-0 makes a compelling story given you gain modeled pianos, organ, various vintage plugins (for more expense), and a different set of sampled sounds. Plus a sequencer, if you're into that, and sampling.

Wonder what Korg is doing ...

[quotePost id=115173]
Wonder what Korg is doing ...[/quotePost]
They just killed the Kronos, so I guess the successor should show up pretty soon.

[quotePost id=115173]
A competitive instrument hasn't wildy changed Yamaha's products. The introduction of the Fantom (original, non-zero) didn't have a huge impact on Montage. Maybe on advancing pitch bend resolution. Maybe on placing pressure on the sequencer story. [/quotePost]

You kidding?

The Pattern Sequencer was so obviously a response to the Fantom that it's even got some degree of paradigm and process alignment with the initial Fantom sequencer. I'm guessing some of the Yamaha staff saw it long before release and did just enough to be able to checkpoint/feature list a "Pattern Sequencer" at the crucial time the Fantom came to market.

Korg is snoozing to find the next idealised dream range. Nautilus is there stopgap while they conceptualise. Probably trying to decide what OS and CPU architecture to use as a basis for a full blown vertical range, with cloud subscriptions providing sounds and song making from halo product all the way down to a new kind of Volca that works well with phone apps.

Looking to the future - a 4x4 grid of pressure sensitive drum pads with aftertouch would be interesting to add. Yamaha hasn't had this sort of thing in a synth and some would claim copy-cat. However, it'd be great to have more scene buttons and having 8 (or more) scene buttons plus mode-able drum pads that can be assigned to scenes switches (1-16 or even 17-32 if we get 16 scene buttons next round) would be cool. Of course there's a lot of other things these pads could do. Aftertouch (on pads) was thrown in as a stretch - even without aftertouch there'd be plenty of goodness.

I wonder if Yamaha is going to decide to do what Korg did with the Oasys. Release a "kitchen sink" (everything and) kind of keyboard with all the technology they can throw at it. Call it the EX56, EX57, EX58 to call back to the EX5 which was previously the closest to this (but with limitations). This round up the retail a little to have enough ASICs to have less limitations.

Given the chip shortages and what I consider to be a lack of proficient and performant programming talent at Yamaha, and other manufacturers really dropping the ball on this opportunity, and Yamaha not having a good (let alone great) VA in their range - can we expect an analogue super synth?

CS-80X

or ...

CSX-80

or just

CS-X

----------
32 voices, 4 timbres and a Mega-Uber-Amazeballs Unison Mode.

3 Analogue Oscillators per voice, plus coloured noise oscillator.

Analogue filters

Polyrhythmic sequencers

Polyphonic Aftertouch, Release Velocity and leftright wiggle control

Kind of like what the Jupiter X should have been.

Retail: $7999

4 voice version for $999 with a half the keys, able to operate as four concurrent, polyrhythmic mono synths, or four voice single timbre.

CS-X

I've decided, should stand for:

Creme Supreme Extreme

In terms of a hardware update, if the past is a guide, we won't see a MODX replacement until some time after a Montage replacement. So... years away.

In terms of what may be feasible in a software update, who knows. Existing Yamaha technologies which may or may not be able to added to the Montage/MODX platform but could keep it more competitive could be

• a YC61-derived organ engine -- allowing it to meet or exceed the organ capabilities of Nautilus, Fantom, PC4/K2700

• a VA engine -- again, all those competitors have that, and Yamaha has done VA before, e.g. AN1x, AN200, PLG-150AN, Reface CS

• acoustic voices with assorted kinds of behavior modeling -- Nautilus has it for EPs and plucked string, Roland has it in SuperNATURAL Acoustic tones (and V-Piano on the higher end Fantoms), and Yamaha has a lot of experience here as well... pioneering some of this with the VL-1, adding SCM to pianos/EPs, and the SA2/AEM Voices of the Genos.

Conceptually, there has been a distinction that Montage/MODX sounds are fully user-editable, while modeled behavior sounds that inherently do not lend themselves to the same kind of editing appeared in Genos where users didn't expect high editability anyway. But from the user's perspective, I don't see an issue in incorporating additional non/minimally-editable sounds into the Montage/MODX platform, just as Roland has long done, i.e. Integra-7, FA, and Fantom all have their fully editable PCM type sounds (similar to AWM2), while simultaneously offering the SuperNATURAL modeled sounds in the same box, without comparable editing parameters. I don't see any problem with there being a separate class of sounds in addition to AWM2 and FM-X that simply don't have many editable parameters. Bringing things like SA2 and Ensemble sounds from the Genos into the Montage/MODX would be huge, IMO. Though as with the others I mentioned above, only Yamaha knows if the Montage/MODX hardware is even capable of it, or whether the OS can support such an addition without a total ground-up rewrite.

To me, one of the biggest advantages Yamaha has had over the years has simply been the quality of their sounds. In terms of straight sampled sounds, Yamaha's are still first-rate. It's in these areas that go beyond straight sampling where competitors are nipping at their heels, sonically.

[quotePost id=115193]Conceptually, there has been a distinction that Montage/MODX sounds are fully user-editable, while modeled behavior sounds that inherently do not lend themselves to the same kind of editing appeared in Genos where users didn't expect high editability anyway. But from the user's perspective, I don't see an issue in incorporating additional non/minimally-editable sounds into the Montage/MODX platform, just as Roland has long done, i.e. Integra-7, FA, and Fantom all have their fully editable PCM type sounds (similar to AWM2), while simultaneously offering the SuperNATURAL modeled sounds in the same box, without comparable editing parameters. I don't see any problem with there being a separate class of sounds in addition to AWM2 and FM-X that simply don't have many editable parameters. [/quotePost]
I like the approach Yamaha has, which very clearly distinguishes between synthesizers and other type of instruments.
I'd rather see them keep with that and broaden the synthesis possibilities, either by augmenting what's already there (FM-X could certainly use an update) or by adding some new synth engines (there seem to be lot of noise for VA but I feel the existing sampling engine would be put to better use with some kind of wavetable / wavescanning). True, with few updates, the FM-X engine could very well be a VA engine at the same time.

In terms of a hardware update, if the past is a guide, we won't see a MODX replacement until some time after a Montage replacement. So... years away.

I tend to calibrate to these longer-range expectations rather than short-term. So while others may be thinking (hyperbole) about turn-on-a-dime firmware releases ready tomorrow morning -- I'm thinking more about distant futures without an expectation that anything a competitor does is going to instantly change the product roadmap which already likely has plans with code written and testing occurring.

I don't mind waiting and seeing and think there's little impact of my wishes. Individually stated.

We have been waiting for years for a firmware that updates Montage and Modx by inserting new synthesis engines.
Virtually all of Yamaha's competitors have implemented Wavetables and VA engines.
Most likely the two SWP70 present in Montage are not able to perform VA synthesis, but it is certainly possible to implement a ToneWheel emulation (YC61-derived organ engine) and some form of Wavetables-WaveSequences.
Regarding the latter, I succeeded without modifying the firmware: Yamaha could easily do it by having direct access to the synthesis engine.
Montage-Modx WaveTables

Let's hope.

[quotePost id=115196]Virtually all of Yamaha's competitors have implemented Wavetables and VA engines.[/quotePost]
That doesn't mean much. In the end what I want is something that I can't find somewhere else and that makes sense within the architecture of the instrument.
The very fact that there is an inflation of VA on the market means there is little benefit in having it in yet another instrument.
All those competitors don't have FM at the level of FM-X, on the other hand.
[quotePost id=115196]Most likely the two SWP70 present in Montage are not able to perform VA synthesis[/quotePost]
Isn't the FM-X engine already a limited VA synth, in a way?
[quotePost id=115196] some form of Wavetables-WaveSequences.
Regarding the latter, I succeeded without modifying the firmware: Yamaha could easily do it by having direct access to the synthesis engine.[/quotePost]
I know about your great work and while there are options out there for wavetable as well, I agree it would be great to have something similar leveraged at the OS level, since it would feel more at home in the digital environment of the Montage/MODX.

The MODX/Montage are already "VA" synths... but hamstrung by the archaic and crude envelopes (filter and amplitude), inability to use velocity as a modulation source and lack of a fully fleshed out LFO (sine wave shape and others, tempo synced. full routing etc) for each Element (oscillator).

Update/fix/add these three things and AWM2 is better than any normal/current VA because it can have anything as an oscillator source, and is responsive to the Motion Sequencer.

Bring these same features to the carriers/modulators of FM-X, and it's a whole new game of amazing.

Also... give us more than sine waves for the FM-X wave. Burning operators and carriers to create square, saws etc is not just expensive, it's creatively limiting. And means FM-X has far too much buzzy DX-7 about it, when it could be much more (as others have pointed out) like a super capable synth type of its own.

If these features means lesser polyphony, that's a price worth paying and would finally make some aspect of the Montage/MODX outshine the gimmicky nature of the SuperKnob and put the focus back on the Motion Sequencer.

Which, you'd hope, they'd finally compliment with step and TR-S style sequencers, too, complete with parameter lock like sequencing (Elektron style) on each step. Twiddle TWIDDLE!

[quotePost id=115198]The very fact that there is an inflation of VA on the market means there is little benefit in having it in yet another instrument.[/quotePost]People often prefer having more capabilities in a single keyboard compared to needing multiple, especially for gigging. If you're going to say you can get tons of boards with VA so MODX doesn't need it, you can also say there are tons of boards with organs. Or heck, tons of boards with pianos, what does MODX need piano for? 😉 (And actually, seriously, I never use the piano in my MODX, my piano always comes from another board. But I don't doubt the appeal of having piano sounds!)

If you want VA in your arsenal, Yamaha forces you to buy something else. If MODX is on the sales floor next to a Fantom-0 or Nautilus or PC4, which give you your VA without buying or finding space for or going to gig with additional gear, the competitors will look more persuasive. (Of course, if you don't care about VA, it doesn't matter, and there are also lots of people who don't need it.)

[quotePost id=115204]The MODX/Montage are already "VA" synths... but hamstrung by the archaic and crude envelopes (filter and amplitude), inability to use velocity as a modulation source and lack of a fully fleshed out LFO (sine wave shape and others, tempo synced. full routing etc) for each Element (oscillator). [/quotePost]Nah. As long as the oscillators are sampled rather than free-running algorithmically generated, you're not going to get real analog-specific kinds of behaviors (when it comes to things like phase behavior of stacked oscillators, portamento, pulse width modulation). You can get closer to some of them if you use the FM side... but FM programming is not much like VA programming. So whichever side you come at it from, it's not VA.

Competitively, these are how the basic sound engine stack up...

Fantom-0: PCM, VA, tonewheel organ, add'l modeling for SuperNATURAL acoustic tones

Nautilus: PCM, VA, FM, tonewheel organ, add'l modeling for EP and plucked strings

PC4: PCM, VA, FM, tonewheel organ

MODX: PCM, FM

Excellent points, AnotherScott.

Gimme VA. Me want!