It can depend on the sounds you compare and how you play them. So for example, the strings can be very different because of the Ensemble feature of the Genos.

Genos also offers four "Super Articulation 2" (SA2) string sounds (Celtic Violin, Jazz Violin, Classical Cello, Pop Cello), which I believe will automatically alter their sonic behavior as you play, in ways not available on MODX.

OTOH, MODX lets you get under the hood and edit the string sounds in ways you cannot on the Genos.

It's a crazy idea to sell two instruments instead of one. Not so bad for the seller though.

Two instruments such as MODX and Montage? Where one is lighter weight, cost reduced, lower cost point - but has most all the same features except ribbon, aftertouch, and lower total polyphony?

... or "two" instruments such as synthesizer and arranger (MODX/Montage and Genos/PSR-E series/PSRSX series/etc)? Where one is a sound sculpting device (synthesizer) and one is a song/playback sculpting device (arranger)?

Montage vs Genos. (MODX vs SX)
I have no money to take both.
From the above, it looks like some sounds are better in the arranger.
Although in essence the synthesizer should sound premium.
Isn't it time to bring all the best together! Auto accompaniment will not be unwanted in the synthesizer.
It doesn't weigh kilograms. Although there are probably engineering features. Don't know.
I think the "hybrid" would not have increased much in price.

There's a lot of overlap in the sounds (samples) - but the arranger has more real-time "automation". Not to say there isn't custom content for Genos - just that historically there's a lot of overlap. Myself, I do wish that weak sounds like the pedal steel on Montage had better controls (like Genos) to better emulate at least something closer to the pedal steel. I can kind of emulate the SA2 behavior by "burning" Part(s) and developing a pedal steel guitar specific to a particular tune. It ends up being a lot of programming (that doesn't always pan out) to get something that the SA2 would more easily handle. There are other perhaps horn SA2 "effects" that would be helpful for some tunes although I get away with what's provided fine. I also wish Montage's FM-X would have provided the DX7 glissando feature which would be one way to get the horn SA2 (instead of pitch bend or portamento - gliss up or down).

If we combined the synth and workstation then look at the pricetag being higher than you want to pay. At the moment you've got to pick the best tool for your job within your budget and run with that until your budget changes or the entire market segmentation changes by maybe some company other than Yamaha releasing a Synth+Arranger hybrid. Not that even that would pull Yamaha in. And I don't see those tides changing anytime soon.

Montage vs Genos. (MODX vs SX)

Don't lump SX in with Genos, it's not like MODX/Montage. MODX has all the same sounds (and sound engines) as the Montage, SX does not have all the sonic technologies of the Genos.

From the above, it looks like some sounds are better in the arranger.

The boards have some different technologies in them. Montage uses samples and FM. Genos only uses samples, but uses them in ways that are beyond the capabilities of Montage. (Good info can be found at http://sandsoftwaresound.net/genos-articulation-future/ ) - So some sounds are "better" in each. FM-type sounds should be better in Montage/MODX because, well, they're generated by FM (whereas to the extent that Genos has "FM sounding" sounds, they will be samples). I don't know about the "multi-part single instruments" sounds, which permit more than 8 sampled elements to be used to create a single sound... maybe this Montage tech is in the Genos, maybe it isn't... maybe someone else here knows and will chime in. But if this is unique to Montage/MODX, then certain acoustic instrument emulations (like piano) may be better there. OTOH, the SA2 capabilities are beyond what the Montage/MODX (or SX) can do with samples.

From what I know (and I could be wrong), I doubt any sounds are better in the SX than in the MODX/Montage. But Genos, yeah.

I think the "hybrid" would not have increased much in price.

Well, considering Genos is already $6k, it's kind of moot to me. 😉 But I do understand the possible irritation of a Genos owner who sees that some sounds are still stronger on the much cheaper Montage/MODX. It's an interesting question as to whether the existing architecture and processing power of the Genos could support the addition of FM-X (and maybe the multi-part single instruments if it doesn't yet have them), or whether its processing capabilities are kind of "maxxed out" by what it already does.

I would love to see SA2 and ensemble voices added to the "synth" line instead of only being in the Genos. What it would do to the price is an open question.

Editability is another big differentiating aspect between the boards, and I could also see it being irritating for someone that a Genos doesn't permit a user to edit sounds to taste the way Montage/MODX do. I do understand not letting the user edit the SA2 sounds, or Megavoices, or anything else that may require more than the kind of AWM editing provided in the Montage/MODX; and I can also understand not wanting to complicate the Genos interface for a function typically desired by a different kind of user than who they expect to buy a Genos. But it would be nice if they would at least support something like the John Melas editor for editing those sounds that are just plain AWM, even if only via computer.

BTW, this kind of split is what Roland does. The plain sample-based sounds in some of their gear (Integra, FA, Fantom at least) are fully editable in the same manner as AWM editing; but those sounds that incorporate other kinds of programming (like the fully modeled V-Piano of the Fantom, or the SuperNATURAL Acoustic sounds which are more analogous to SA2 in that they are generally sampled sounds with additional articulations/behaviors that are modeled or automatically employed based on the person's playing) are not similarly user-editable (and it probably makes sense, because editing the samples could easily break the behavior modeling, and editing the behavior modeling is probably beyond the abilities of the typical layman programmer and/or using proprietary techniques that they would not want to reveal via user-available programming tools). It's still nice to be able to edit certain types of sounds, even if you can't edit all of them. I think that would be a nice enhancement to Yamaha's arranger line. (Korg's mid and high end arrangers do permit sound editing, on-board, so again, this is not unprecedented.)

But anyway, I guess the bottom line is, nothing gives you everything. You could buy a Genos AND a Montage/MODX, and you still wouldn't have the organs of a YC61, or all the piano sounds/features of a CP88 or P515, or the synth capabilities of a Reface CS. So focussing on why the Genos and Montage don't have more in common sonically may be focussing on a couple of trees inside the bigger forest that the Yamaha line is full of differently targeted products with their own unique sounds and features, which is also true of most other brands, to one extent or another.

I'm a beginner and just express my opinion. I guess I don't understand a lot.
All I would like to improve the arpeggiator MODX.
So that he can recognize chords, and not combinations of sounds.
Don't need a lot of variation intro and end buttons.
Although MODX have enough space especially on the right side of the panel.
No extra buttons needed. I just want to improve the arpeggiator.
Add upper and lower limit so that chords are not transposed but inversed.
Also needs more controllable user arpeggio recording.

I'm a little disappointed with the FM engine.
At first, synthesis seemed cool.
But in fact, the sampled FM sounds are tastier.
I already give more preference to AWM than FM, even if this is a timbre shot from FM.
I also miss the noise oscillator for diving to FM.
In general, I would completely ditch the FM-X in favor of the good old AWM2. 🙂

I didn't have FA-06 for long, and I didn't really like SuperNatural either. Cold, loud tones.
Sounds somehow artificial. WAV based on for me better.

Genos scares me because it is less manageable, despite the fact that the price is even more expensive.

A few more words about dreams that are not destined to come true.
I always want to play full-sized keys. It is desirable even with hammers.
But 88 keys take up a lot of space.
61-keys is a good solution, but hammers would be nice.
If I'm not mistaken the old Rhodes models were like that?

I would like 61 with Grand Piano keys. (with actual price)

61-keys is a good solution, but hammers would be nice.
If I'm not mistaken the old Rhodes models were like that?

I would like 61 with Grand Piano keys. (with actual price)

Rhodes basically came in 73 and 88 (and the little piano bass). Any other size would be a very rare bird. Though Vintage Vibe currently make a 64-key version of their Rhodes recreation. Unfortunately it costs about as much as a Genos. 😉

You may be thinking of the Wurlis which were 64.

There have been very few hammer action boards shorter than 73. Fatar used to make a 61-key hammer action soundless controller, and Roland used to make the 64-key RD-64, but they're both long gone. At half the price of the Vintage Vibe (but not designed to emulate Rhodes), there's the Valente electric piano, which is 61 keys, but it's still kind of a one-trick pony.

At least there's a pretty good selection of 73s these days, which hasn't always been the case. Yamaha's got the P-121, CP73, and YC73, after what I think was a notable gap of having no 7x-key hammer action boards since the S70XS. Korg, Dexibell, and Nord offer hammer action 7x-key boards, too.

As for your initial points about the arpeggiator features you're looking for... I've hardly ever used an arpeggiator, so can't offer any suggestions there, as to whether MOD may or may not be able to already do some of what you're asking for, or what other boards might.

Getting back to the original question.... 🙂

I play both Genos and MODX. As folks have pointed out, they are different instruments for different target users. Auto-accompaniment or not, voice editing or not -- you get the picture. Much depends on how a player wants to use the instrument, their musical goals, their musical process.

Concentrating on AWM2 since Genos does not have FM-X, the instruments have many samples in common. There are a few areas where Genos is "ahead" of MODX (Montage) and a few areas where MODX is a little ahead of Genos. For example, both have the Seattle strings, but Genos has the Kino strings in addition.

Even with the same sonic DNA, the instruments are voiced differently in the same way a piano might be voiced for different genres. Genos tends to be a "sit in the mix" voicing to spiff up auto-accompaniment styles. MODX is excellent, but is awaiting your tweaks.

As mentioned, each instrument has a different approach to playing gestures and articulations. Genos articulations are initiated when software detects certain gestures or when one of the three articulation buttons are pressed. MODX recognizes legato, but relies on its two assignable buttons for control.

Super Articulation 2 -- Genos only -- is a whole other beast that melds gestural articulations with synthesis that glues notes together (head, body, tail). You don't get to play with SArt2 too much as the technology is complicated and very latency sensitive if not controlled/implemented correctly.

Although both instruments are based on AWM2, the soft synthesis layers are different in each instrument. MODX is "close to the metal" while Genos is rooted in Yamaha XG. This affects the effects (no pun intended) as MODX allows two insert effects while Genos allows only one insert effect per part. DSP effects certainly affect what one hears!

Hope this info helps -- pj

Editability is another big differentiating aspect between the boards, and I could also see it being irritating for someone that a Genos doesn't permit a user to edit sounds to taste the way Montage/MODX do. I do understand not letting the user edit the SA2 sounds, or Megavoices, or anything else that may require more than the kind of AWM editing provided in the Montage/MODX; and I can also understand not wanting to complicate the Genos interface for a function typically desired by a different kind of user than who they expect to buy a Genos. But it would be nice if they would at least support something like the John Melas editor for editing those sounds that are just plain AWM, even if only via computer.

Great post -- gotta add a few comments about editing. There are quite a few players who want to edit Genos voices and Yamaha's current approach comes up short.

Yamaha Expansion Manager (YEM) is the computer-based tool for mid- to high-end Yamaha arrangers. YEM is the means for selecting and loading expansion packs. YEM also supports element-level voice editing for Genos (and Tyros 5).

As far as editing is concerned, YEM is incomplete. (One could use a less kind term. 🙁 ) You can edit 90% of a MegaVoice, but the parameters necessary for cross-fade, etc. are inaccessible. I've taken many a tour through YEM's internal UVF voice files. The parameters are there! YEM exposes only the most basic/essential aspects of an AWM2 regular voice.

Yamaha does not publish a list of the internal waveforms a la its synthesizers. Some waveforms are only known by cryptic names like "[V-1023 E-1]". Arg. 🙁

As to Super Articulation (not SArt2), the technology is not beyond ordinary users who are familiar with AWM2 synthesis. Super Articulation is essentially "software scripting" on top of MegaVoice. YEM could expose SArt control in the same way that MODX exposes Expanded Articulation.

Super Articulation 2 is a beast. I don't think very many people could ride the beast even if they had access to the parameters. Yes, I would love to try, but I'm sure that Yamaha has better things to do for many other people. 😀

Hope this helps -- pj

For more about Genos voice editing with Yamaha Expansion Manager, please see:

http://sandsoftwaresound.net/genos-voice-editing-yem/
http://sandsoftwaresound.net/genos-voice-editing-xml-notepad/
http://sandsoftwaresound.net/genos-voice-editing-an-example/
http://sandsoftwaresound.net/genos-voice-editing-blending-the-split-point/

BTW, this example shows how to work around YEM's limitations by editing the UVF XML file. Not for the faint of heart.

-- pj

P.S. Yamaha YEM development team -- please read!

Great info, Paul. Despite the shortcomings listed in those articles, it's good to see that there's more editability on the Genos than I thought there was.

Montage vs Genos. (MODX vs SX)
I have no money to take both.
From the above, it looks like some sounds are better in the arranger.
Although in essence the synthesizer should sound premium.
Isn't it time to bring all the best together! Auto accompaniment will not be unwanted in the synthesizer.
It doesn't weigh kilograms. Although there are probably engineering features. Don't know.
I think the "hybrid" would not have increased much in price.

You can have a MODX/Montage AND an arranger, all in the same package: www.groovyband.live/modx. This is the best of both worlds, and although it was already signaled a couple of months ago in a post on this forum, apparently nobody noticed.

I have them all: a PSR-S770, a MODX6, and the Groovyband Live! software (and also a MO6, which has the same sounds of Motif ES from 20 years ago). I can make a comparison here.

The PSR/Tyros/Genos/MODX/Montage/Motif use the same samples and have many "identical" sounds. Of course there are differences, but overall this is clearly the same material (that dates back more than 20 years ago) served again and again in different formats. If you carefully make an A/B comparison you can even spot the same imperfections (glitches) in samples badly recorded probably in the 90s. And present in all Yamaha products since then. They never bothered to replace them with better samples.

If you pick the same sound, take away the insert effects, and play it on the PSR and MODX (both connected to the same mixer and studio monitors) you immediately notice that the PSR sounds "thin" while the MODX sounds much bolder and detailed. For me this is due to the fact that the samples are lossy compressed to fit a given ROM size, and on the PSR (and all XG sound modules) this ROM is tiny (hundreds of megabytes at most). Although nowadays ROM storage costs NOTHING (check on Amazon the price of a 128 GB SSD!), these Yamaha products use 20 years old outdated technology and are cheaply built to save every penny. The MODX/Montage too have a ridiculously small ROM (4 GB, including the user area), but it is one order of magnitude (10x) bigger than on the PSR. And this makes an audible difference.

Although the XG sounds are thin and clearly worse when listened to as lead (solo) voices, when you consider the mix (automatic arrangement + solo voices) the situation is not as bad. This is because in a mix each sound must not overlap with other sounds and hence have to use a smaller portion of the frequency spectrum, and details disappear anyway (limitation of human brain). When you mix a piece using the MODX sounds you often have to strip them down (= filter out frequencies) in order to make a good sounding ensemble.

To sum up, the raw sound quality (without effects applied) is still in favor of MODX, but less so, as at first sight it might appear. You also have to consider that the sample ROM is not allocated uniformly to all sounds on offer: most of the sample ROM is used by a few sounds (let us say 80% of the storage is used by 20% of sounds), the newer ones, introduced in later models. And they do sound better than the average. But the bulk of the sounds (20 years old legacy) use very little ROM and clearly sound worse and dated.

The problem is compounded by the fact that styles and sound patches are mostly recycled from older models, and hence do NOT make use of the few newer and better sounding samples. I can play hundreds of same named pacthes on my MO6 and MODX6 and cannot tell the difference!! You can also play most of Genos styles and cannot tell the difference from a PSR S770.

Let us now talk about insert effects. Both PSR and MODX have similar (sometimes even identical) effects algorithms. The quality is the same. They are fine. What makes the difference is the number you can use: 4x1 on PSR, 12x2 on MODX. Although the single insert effect available on XG is sometimes more powerful (it combines 2 commonly used together effects into one algorithm) you are clearly at disadvantage. You have less sculpting power (you cannot add for example a compressor AND a delay), and also you can apply it to only a few parts.

This makes a HUGE difference: being able to apply insert effects to practically all parts in a mix makes it sounding much richer!! If you sum this up with the edge you already had in the raw (un-effected) sound, at the end of the day the MODX does sound noticeably better across the board.

Later PSR and Tyros models (and even more the Genos) do have a few more inserts available (PSR SX900 has 8), but they are still a fraction of those you can use on the MODX. And, as already said, styles and sound patches are mostly legacy material that does not even use the few DSPs you have available. A clear example are the Genos styles. Although the Genos could theoretically use 12 inserts, in practice the supplied styles use at most 5 or 6!!

To me SA/SA2 voices (only available on XG) do not change the equation appreciably. They mostly add nuances that most listeners do not even appreciate in solo playing, let alone when sitting in a busy mix! A simple AWM2 sax with added compression and delay (for example) would sound much better than a naked SA sax without effects and with a heavily compressed (storage) sample!.

* * *

Now let us talk about styles and arranger functionality.

PSR/Tyros/Genos all use the same arranger engine since the late 90s. Nothing has changed under the sun. All the world has moved on (think about how the Windows OS was in the 90s, or the "mobile" phones you were using back then), but not the Yamaha arrangers. Yes, they incrementally added a few more sounds, a few more styles, but that's it! Do you really think that a Genos vs a PSR 3000 would make any difference for a listener? Genos are mostly sold to wealthy retired people (check on YouTube the average public attending the Tyros/Genos roadshows organized by Yamaha to promote their premium/high revenue product). On the other hand if you look at those making a living entertaining people, you would notice that they have on average a 15 years old arranger (it is a tool, like a van, not a status symbol, like a Ferrari).

Synths buyers are different, probably they are younger, with less money to spend and with more choices (both HW and SW). So the synths are priced accordingly (much cheaper than an "equivalent" arranger). And for what I said earlier they also sound better overall. What was missing till now was the arranger functionality (basically software: a firmware that could drive via midi the synth's sound engine).

From an industrial point of view it does not make sense to have 2 product lines (arrangers, synths) when a single hardware piece of equipment + a firmware implementing both functionalities would do a better job. After all you do not have a computer for word processing and another different computer for internet browsing. You have 1 computer (hardware) and many different software to implement the functionality you need.

But for a marketing point of view it does! For sure Yamaha will never kill their cash cows (Genos and arrangers in general: almost no R&D expenses, high selling prices).

When I saw Groovyband Live! I immediately downloaded the demo. The software on paper seemed very promising. The features list is impressive (check their site, including the online user manual) and the audio demos too sounded good.
After playing it I must say that I was impressed: it really gave me the same feeling of an HW arranger and it sounded really good, better than my PSR! And the supplied styles have many more nuances and variety than those that comes with the PSR.
They have 8 preprogrammed Main variation slots (vs 4 of a Yamaha arranger), they have 8 OTSes, each with 2 different variations (vs 4 OTSes on Yamaha with no variations) and hence give you an almost unlimited power to customise your playing and never repeat yourself. You can also easily change the pattern of each part while the style is playing thus you can forge unlimited variations and check them in real time. I came up with very interesting results.
What I also found very valuable is the advanced harmony function (fully programmable) that lets you obtain rich and interesting effects to complement your melody lines. Preset styles offer many examples.
OTSes can be switched glitch free (impossible on Yamaha arrangers): you can even sustain a note, change the OTS, play a new note, and still hear both the old and new notes! Abundant use of DSP power, both on acompaniment and solo parts, makes the whole mix really gorgeous.
You can easily customise sounds and effects on every section for every acmp part (i.e: on MAIN 1 you a have a clean chorused guitar, that turns into a distorted guitar on MAIN 2).

How do you interact with the software? Many options.

You can use the mouse and/or the touch screen (I found a windows tablet laid on top of MODX screen was very practical), you can use any control surface/midi keyboard (up to 4 devices) both to play notes and trigger actions, and you can also use many buttons/knobs of the MODX panel itself. This latter option is very HW arranger like: you can trigger for example a fill-in or a variation change with the scene buttons right on top of your left hand!

On the minus side I must say that the styles available are still limited (~100), but they are steadily growing (the software was launched a few months ago on September). And since they are so addictive you always want more. I have been emailed a newsletter announcing a new edition for January that will let you also load Yamaha SFF2 styles, so the options for new material to play should increase significantly.

All amazingly good points.

I'd like to add a scary one: I think the Genos outsell the MODX.

Which isn't to say the Genos sell well, it's that synths sell very few.