[quotePost id=115537]Other than FM-X, what does the MODX do better?[/quotePost]
I think these are right...

* Fantom sampled sounds have a max of 4 elements (they call them partials), MODX has up to 8 elements in a single Part sounds, plus the ability to gang up multiple Parts to create multi-part single instruments that can have even more than 8 elements

* Fantom sounds have one insert effect each, MODX sounds have two insert effects each

* MODX has class compliant audio over USB, so for example, you can connect an iPad and connect just a single cable for MIDI and audio

* MODX has the SuperKnob and Motion Control functions

[quotePost id=115538]Well, for a full on board sequencer, it looks like there's always the Korg Kronos. [/quotePost]I think Kronos is being discontinued. But Korg has sequencers in lots of boards... Nautilus, Kross, Krome, and I think the PA700/PA1000/Pa4x arrangers. Yamaha has it in the Genos and (still available) MOXF6. Roland has it in the FA, but it looks like that's being discontinued. Kurzweil has it in the PC4 and K2700.So there are some options. Every board has its pros and cons, though...

[quotePost id=115543][quotePost id=115537]Other than FM-X, what does the MODX do better?[/quotePost]
I think these are right...

* Fantom sampled sounds have a max of 4 elements (they call them partials), MODX has up to 8 elements in a single Part sounds, plus the ability to gang up multiple Parts to create multi-part single instruments that can have even more than 8 elements

[/quotePost]

This feels a bit like a trick and/or compromise, by Yamaha, in that the Parts of a MODX/Montage don't have the polyphony per part, but per Element, whereas on the Roland the per Part polyphony is calculated at the Part level rather than at the Partial level, so far as I understand it. This limitation of Element polyphony (not part polyphony) is something I only recently learnt about the MODX/Montage. On ganging up, yes Roland does this, too. It's just the same as any other range/layering of multi-timbral instruments.

[quotePost id=115543]
* Fantom sounds have one insert effect each, MODX sounds have two insert effects each
[/quotePost]

I think this is probably the most significant difference between the two instruments, or at least it is for me, as I use a lot of FX when making sounds. But this also might be because the AWM2 and FM-X engines are limited by antiquated envelopes, and the FM-X further limited by its reliance on only sine waves, especially when compared to the VA and other synth types on Fantom, and their superior (by far) amp and filter envelope shaping abilities and timings.

[quotePost id=115543]
* MODX has class compliant audio over USB, so for example, you can connect an iPad and connect just a single cable for MIDI and audio
[/quotePost]
Essentially have to be done off-board with the Yamaha, so, in sum, am not sure this is a total benefit, rather than just a different way to accomplish much of what can be done inboard on the Rolands.

[quotePost id=115543]
* MODX has the SuperKnob and Motion Control functions
[/quotePost]

The Roland LFO features offer all of this via a (very) different interface, with some advantages over Yamaha's way, including a much more intuitive way to do what we might otherwise call "Parameter Locks" if it was an Elektron device, something that is almost impossible on the MODX/Montage, and is almost absolutely discoverable.

[quotePost id=115538]Well, for a full on board sequencer, it looks like there's always the Korg Kronos. [/quotePost]I think Kronos is being discontinued. But Korg has sequencers in lots of boards... Nautilus, Kross, Krome, and I think the PA700/PA1000/Pa4x arrangers. Yamaha has it in the Genos and (still available) MOXF6. Roland has it in the FA, but it looks like that's being discontinued. Kurzweil has it in the PC4 and K2700.So there are some options. Every board has its pros and cons, though...[/quotePost]

Thank you for the great info! I will check these out.

[quotePost id=115546][quotePost id=115543]* Fantom sampled sounds have a max of 4 elements (they call them partials), MODX has up to 8 elements in a single Part sounds, plus the ability to gang up multiple Parts to create multi-part single instruments that can have even more than 8 elements
[/quotePost]
This feels a bit like a trick and/or compromise, by Yamaha, in that the Parts of a MODX/Montage don't have the polyphony per part, but per Element, whereas on the Roland the per Part polyphony is calculated at the Part level rather than at the Partial level, so far as I understand it. This limitation of Element polyphony (not part polyphony) is something I only recently learnt about the MODX/Montage.[/quotePost]
No, Roland polyphony is counted at the Partial level, same as Yamaha at the Element level. In terms of sampled sounds, they have the same quoted polyphony. Yamaha says MODX has AWM2 polyphony of 128, regardless of whether the Elements are mono or stereo. Roland says Fantom's ZEN-Core has PCM polyphony of 256, but each partial uses up two instances to allow for stereo, and it uses the two instances regardless of whether the sound actually is stereo or mono, which means that, for sampled sounds, it is identical to Yamaha's 128, just stated differently.

Now let's talk about what happens when you combine the sampled sounds with non-sampled sounds. When you add an FM sound on the MODX, it has its own 64 units of polyphony, so you can add an FM sound without reducing the polyphony of your sampled sound(s). OTOH, Roland has no separate polyphony for its ZEN-Core VA synth engine, so adding synth sounds does reduce available polyphony for sampled sounds.

See: https://www.roland.com/us/support/knowledge_base/4570102526491/

[quotePost id=115546] On ganging up, yes Roland does this, too. It's just the same as any other range/layering of multi-timbral instruments. [/quotePost]
I'm talking about single instruments, not layering multiple instruments. Let's take piano, for example. Yes, on the Roland, technically, one could construct a single sampled Piano instrument combining two Roland tones in order to create a single playable piano that had 8 partials (elements)... but there are no such sounds supplied. If you want an 8-partial/element piano in the Fantom, you'll have to sample one yourself (from a real piano, or from another keyboard or VST) and program it into the Fantom accordingly. Yamaha not only has single-part pianos with 8 elements already, but also multi-part pianos where they provide you with pianos with more than 8 elements. The multi-part CFX piano has 18 Elements. No ZEN-Core piano has more than 4 Partials.

Now to be fair, piano happens to be one of the sounds where Roland also has "SuperNATURAL" versions that use modeling as a method to, for example, address velocity-based timbral changes without actually using samples of those velocities. So one could make the argument that they don't need 18 Elements to get a similar result. But I'd just suggest listening to Yamaha's pianos and compare them to the SuperNATURAL pianos in the Fantom, and see what you think actually sounds more like a real piano. (I'm not putting Roland down here, I like a lot of their stuff, and sometimes I do prefer their version of a sound to Yamaha's... but piano isn't one of those times.)

You can see the Yamaha approach well demonstrated in the video at https://youtu.be/xaXw0LC34gk - start at about 90 seconds in.

And to be unfair to the MODX, the pianos are the absolute worst part of it. They're all thin and light, at best, or ratty and tinny at the top when pushed to get bigger. Enormous fudging is required to get them anywhere near what one might expect from Yamaha. This has been well documented in comparison to the Montage, and Jason, perhaps the only person with the patience and skillset required to correct the MODX settings such that this is somewhat alleviated, only has a Montage.

The stuff about partials being limited and forcibly using 2 units of polyphony regardless of actual usage, very interesting! Thank you! @AnotherScott

[quotePost id=115554]And to be unfair to the MODX, the pianos are the absolute worst part of it. They're all thin and light, at best, or ratty and tinny at the top when pushed to get bigger. Enormous fudging is required to get them anywhere near what one might expect from Yamaha. This has been well documented in comparison to the Montage, and Jason, perhaps the only person with the patience and skillset required to correct the MODX settings such that this is somewhat alleviated, only has a Montage.[/quotePost]
Ah, well yes, piano sounds can be subjective, and I'm not a fan of Roland's SN piano sounds. And there are virtually no editable parameters for them. For MODX, AFAIK, the "enormous fudging" you mentioned was just increasing the velocity offset value. (At least based on the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VbMzParso8 for example.) But regardless of what you think about the pianos, the underlying point remains, a factory-supplied sampled instrument on the Fantom is limited to 4 Partials, whereas a sampled instrument on the MODX supports 8 Elements per Part, and multiple Parts per acoustic instrument. These elements/partials get used up, not just for different velocity samples, but also alternate articulations, and noise artifacts of the instrument. You can't do as much of this with only 4 partials to work with. This is a technical advantage of Yamaha's architecture, and so was an example of something MODX does better.

[quotePost id=115556][quotePost id=115554]And to be unfair to the MODX, the pianos are the absolute worst part of it. They're all thin and light, at best, or ratty and tinny at the top when pushed to get bigger. Enormous fudging is required to get them anywhere near what one might expect from Yamaha. This has been well documented in comparison to the Montage, and Jason, perhaps the only person with the patience and skillset required to correct the MODX settings such that this is somewhat alleviated, only has a Montage.[/quotePost]
Ah, well yes, piano sounds can be subjective, and I'm not a fan of Roland's SN piano sounds. And there are virtually no editable parameters for them. For MODX, AFAIK, the "enormous fudging" you mentioned was just increasing the velocity offset value. (At least based on the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VbMzParso8 for example.) But regardless of what you think about the pianos, the underlying point remains, a factory-supplied sampled instrument on the Fantom is limited to 4 Partials, whereas a sampled instrument on the MODX supports 8 Elements per Part, and multiple Parts per acoustic instrument. These elements/partials get used up, not just for different velocity samples, but also alternate articulations, and noise artifacts of the instrument. You can't do as much of this with only 4 partials to work with. This is a technical advantage of Yamaha's architecture, and so was an example of something MODX does better. [/quotePost]

There's an enormous compromise to adjusting the offset, reduction of dynamic range/accuracy. I think you know this.

As to reinforcing your other points about partials versus the layered approach with the Roland... it's half a dozen of one, 6 of the other. Getting a good piano sound out of the MODX requires huge work. So any work required to get an equivalent from the Roland equals out. Both need masses of effort.

Montage vs Fantom 6/7/8 is a different argument, much closer to the point you seem to be making, because the Montage pianos are vastly fuller with complete dynamic range etc.

Since all 16 Zones are available at once - one way to compare would be to consider 2 zones in Fantom as most closely compared to a MODX/Montage Part.

In which case what MODX/Montage calls an insertion effect free to assign any of the 2 (or both) to any of the 8 oscillators - and Fantom can have two effects but only half can be assigned to one effect and half assigned to the other -- with no serial chaining of the effects.

But also since Parts are a container for 8 oscillators in MODX - there are some amount of "shared" resources among the 8 oscillators that are Part settings that in Fantom are assigned to 4 oscillators. So although perhaps effects routing of MODX/Montage insertion effects is more flexible - there's more flexibility in other aspects of the architecture with only 4 oscillators per Zone in Fantom since you're able to break a MODX Part in half (ignoring the effects story).

In Fantom you have the IFX section which is like having two Variation system effects in MODX/Montage. Then Fantom also has Chorus and Reverb shared effects. Although the IFX section in Fantom is shared - the routing is different from MODX/Montage's system effects. You can route, per Zone, which IFX you route to first (when chained, IFX1 first or IFX2 first) - which is different from system effects.

The master FX side of Fantom doesn't have any options as MODX/Montage. However, there is compression and an analog filter in this area. So Fantom, on the master fx side, misses out on MODX/Montage's Delay (w or w/o distortion), Lo-Fi, Bit Crusher, Ring Modulator, and similar in this section.

Montage/MODX has an edge if you like to layer different insertion effects on multiple Parts. However, other than that - which architecture is "better" would be subjective. Less consolidation can be beneficial for certain structures.

If you did need to approximate MODX/Montage's 2 insertion effects on the Fantom then you could build a 4-Zone patch with Zones 1+2 having the same MFX (MODX's equiv as Part 1 InsA) then Zones 3+4 as a different MFX (Part 2 InsA). Then then IFX1 would be used for Zone 1+2's equiv of MODX Part 1 InsB and IFX2 used for Zone 3+4's MODX Part 2 InsB. And then, yes, the rest of the Fantom Zones would have a single insertion effect unless there's any chance of repeats with IFX1 or IFX2 for the other Parts. That only gets you parity at 2 MODX equiv Parts. Then the remaining Zones (Fantom) would need to reuse InsB from one of the 1st two Part equivalents. So, limiting in a way ... But really just different.

[quotePost id=115560]

because the Montage pianos are vastly fuller with complete dynamic range etc.

Can you expand on that a little?

I have a MODX but don't have a Montage.

Are the 'Montage pianos' you mention performances that are NOT on the MODX?

Or are you saying that there are performances on the Montage that are actually set up differently than the performance of the same name that is on the MODX?

I have no way of knowing but I think I'd be surprised if a performance with the same name had different settings those two different instruments.

[/quotePost]

The Montage has a vastly better DAC, which is a good portion of the difference.

The Montage keyboards better inform a full spectrum of velocity.

Both of these were key factors (excuse pun) in designing the piano sounds' responses to player input.

None of the presets were changed when porting to MODX.

Much of the heavier aspects of velocity are harder to get at (as a player) on the MODX, so many consider the offset "trick" to be sufficient to gain some of the volume back. But this does have a couple of costs/compromises.

There's nothing that can be done about the downgrade in DAC other than much careful and judicious settings messing around, and even a bit more layering. But it's all fudges. No way to get it back to Montage quality, levels, latitude and depth of responsiveness.

[quotePost id=115559]There's an enormous compromise to adjusting the offset, reduction of dynamic range/accuracy[/quotePost]Maybe, but there's also an enormous compromise in playing piano from an action that isn't giving you the response you want. You do what you can to minimize the compromise overall. Your complaint here (or the complaint of those who say their MODX isn't giving them what they got out of a Montage) isn't about the MODX sounds per se (which appear to be VERY close to the Montage sounds), but with the mating of those sounds to the MODX actions. We don't yet know about the playability/responsiveness of the Fantom-0 actions. So I was only comparing technical, functional, architectural differences. Which is more pleasing to play will have to wait until more people get their hands on the Fantom-0. In either board, if you were to run their sounds from a sequencer, or a given external controller as many people sometimes do, you might react differently than if you were to play the same sounds from the board's own keys. But I did find that velocity tweaking my MODX7 as needed made it a more satisfying board to play piano from. (Though it might be even better to reserve its own keys for non-piano sounds, and trigger its piano sounds from some external hammer action board, as some do.)

[quotePost id=115559]As to reinforcing your other points about partials versus the layered approach with the Roland... it's half a dozen of one, 6 of the other. Getting a good piano sound out of the MODX requires huge work. So any work required to get an equivalent from the Roland equals out. Both need masses of effort.[/quotePost]
Did you watch that video? The "huge work" was one setting. Once you know what it is, it takes maybe 10 seconds to adjust. (Assuming you approved of his results.) If you've got a multi-part sound as he did in the video, meaning he had to make the adjustment four times, maybe it's more like 40 seconds. What would be involved in the Roland? To tweak a SuperNatural piano, well, it basically can't be done, there are virtually no tools for that. To tweak a 4-partial piano sound? You'll never get a 19-element sound out of it. To create your own piano sound from scratch, doing your own sampling, and ending up with a better than factory sound? If you've never done it before? Better give yourself days, weeks, months, years, or never. I'm not being facetious, quality sampling is a challenge, and a piano is particularly difficult. So it's like trying to estimate how long it will take you to learn a complicated Chopin piece. Depending on the existing skills/talents and experience of the player, it could take days, weeks, months, years, or never. Versus 10 to 40 seconds.

But in the end, it's all subjective. Maybe you love the Roland sounds just as they are, and don't care for Yamaha's. So please don't get so hung up on the example that you miss the bigger point. Yamaha sounds, by design and as supplied by Yamaha, can have many elements; Roland's can only have 4. There is a raw difference in sonic potential there when it comes to sampled sounds. That's the point.

[quotePost id=115559]Montage vs Fantom 6/7/8 is a different argument, much closer to the point you seem to be making, because the Montage pianos are vastly fuller with complete dynamic range etc...The Montage has a vastly better DAC, which is a good portion of the difference.[/quotePost]
Just to bring that back to my earlier point... Differences like DACs are subtle, and beyond what would be noticeable when playing live with a band, for example. Montage sounds better, but not worlds better, at least once you factor out the action; and we can't say yet what sonic difference the Fantom-0 action may introduce compared to the Fantom action, that remains to be seen (I haven't yet seen any reports of anyone playing the same sound on a Fantom and Fantom-0.) If there is a similar difference, it would probably be able to be similarly addressed through velocity parameters. Is it a compromise to do that on the MODX? I guess, compared to ideal. But play it and see if it makes you smile before merely dismissing it conceptually.

[quotePost id=115562]Since all 16 Zones are available at once - one way to compare would be to consider 2 zones in Fantom as most closely compared to a MODX/Montage Part. [/quotePost]For people designing their own Performances/Tones/Scenes basically from scratch, this is an interesting comparison. For the majority of people, who mostly if not entirely use factory sounds in various split/layered combinations, perhaps with minor tweaking or effects manipulations, this has little real-world relevance. For most MODX or Fantom-0 purchasers, there is going to be an inherent difference in the sample-based sounds, where the Yamaha sounds will often have more elements and/or more available effects than their Roland equivalents. So I still see that as a MODX advantage (getting back to the original question of, besides FM, what can MODX do better than Fantom-0).

Since another thread mentioned an opinion about MODX/Montage's Amplitude envelopes - I thought it would be interesting to see how much greener the grass is on the Fantom, if at all.

Montage/MODX

Fantom-6,7,8 (not from 06,07,08 manual - but should be similar)

What you don't see, which could affect the usefulness, is the "scale" of each value. Log vs. linear vs ... And you see 3 more bits of resolution in the value which gives you either finer control or more range, or both in Fantom. Fantom is missing the initial level prior to the attack - which is one less lever to pull. However, otherwise the structure of the two is identical. You see Fantom also has Decay1+Decay2. There's a mode of relating knobs to the AEG where parameters are ignored (Time 2 and Level 3) to yield a "more traditional" ADSR envelope experience.

The 10-bits for AEG in Fantom is more because they've decided to make their controllers 10-bit and then all connected parameters are steered to 10-bit and not necessarily an envelope-only thing. That said, more resolution is a good thing in my opinion.

I see you've completely neglected to point out that the LFO's for each Partial (two per partial) can have 16 unique, customised steps, and therefore act as "envelopes" of any sort, for just about anything, kind of providing an infinite variety of "enveloping" for any and all ideas.

And both can be tempo synced!

And they have sine waves.

And they can be key triggered.

The deeper you dig into ZenCore, the more ways you'll realise it's superior to AWM2.

That's about LFOs. When digs are made to the AEG envelope - side by side they look to be close to parity besides the resolution on one side and missing level on the other.

You can use the master volume slider as an envelope if you're skilled enough - but I'm not going to enter that into a side-by-side comparison of the AEG feature. That's all I was presenting -- without taking sides.

[quotePost id=115567]I get your point but I'd caution people to take that video 'fix' with a large grain of salt (maybe even a cow lick!).

It really only shows that there may be a way to tweak the depth or volume offsets to good effect.

But I wouldn't suggest making that same change to all 4 parts like in the video.

If you start by making the change only to part 1 you will find it actually seriously degrades the performance of part 1. The severe degradation gets masked by the overbearing effect of making the change to part 2.

The person in the video also didn't make any changes to the 'Depth' setting and I think you need the proper combo of 'Depth' and 'Offset' to do it right.

So while the video demos that there is something to be had by tweaking those settings it doesn't really settle the question of how to do it right.[/quotePost]
Long before I saw any video, I came upon the same solution myself, and yes, I altered depth AND offset. But I picked a single-part piano, that's the one I wanted to use at the gigs, which means I didn't have to deal with multiple parts. That said, I think you would want to make the same offset for each Part of a multi-part piano, because in some cases, one Part "picks up" from where another one "ends" (velocity-wise), so if you altered the velocity response of one without the other, it seems to me like you might get something strange at the transition between the two. But I suppose one could experiment.

But the way I see it, it's not a matter of how to do it "right," it's how to make it play and sound good to you, that's all. That is, there's no objective right or wrong there. But certainly, if the issue is the velocity responsiveness (i.e. you have to hit too hard to get the high velocity timbre out of it, as the player in that video was indicating), then that points to these velocity adjustments as an easy, direct way to address that. As I said, I came to the same conclusion myself, and it took me maybe 30 seconds to get a piano out of the MODX7 that I was perfectly happy playing. Is it the very best it could possibly be? Well, I tweaked enough in 30 seconds to say, "ooh, that sounds and feels nice," and stopped. Maybe I could get it even better if I put more time into it... but I'm happy with it.

[quotePost id=115567]Changing 'Resonance' in the filter is another way to get more volume without actually changing volume but, overdone, it also has some undesireable side effects.[/quotePost]I wouldn't have expected any filter resonance in a piano patch.

Anyway, I understand this can be subjective, but personally, I think the MODX piano sounds, even untweaked, are better than the Roland SuperNATURAL pianos. Beyond that, MODX gives you the tools to make all kinds of adjustments to their piano sound to further customize it to your taste, while the SN pianos can hardly be altered at all. So in my case, the choice would be a Roland piano I don't really care for, a MODX piano I think is better, an even better MODX piano if I put 30 seconds of work into it, but nothing I could do that would possibly make the Roland SN piano noticeably better than it is. Roland does give you deep editing on the non SN pianos, but then you're limited to a 4-partial piano vs. an 8 or even 19-element piano. The tools and the raw materials just don't exist in the Roland to do what you can do on the MODX in this respect, unless you really intend to sample your own piano from scratch. But even then, from what I understand, Roland gives you 256 mb of available sample space to work with to build your sound (which must be shared among all your sampled sounds and expansions), which is a quarter of what MODX gives you, where again you could similarly create your own piano sample if you were so inclined.

But really I didn't mean to get side-tracked to a comparison of the piano sounds. My bigger point here was simply that one advantage of the MODX sample architecture over Roland's is that Roland's PCM sounds are limited to 4 partials per instrument, whereas Yamaha's AWM2 can have 8 (or more) elements. Again, I was just answering the question, for examples of areas where MODX can out-perform Fantom-0.