Hello Mitchell - as a rank amateur, I'd say yes, there is a difference. Analog has warmth and depth and atmosphere, FM is bright and hard and clean. Messy old Nature and clinical Mathematics. I know real experts can make either sound like the other - but why? It's like coffee-flavoured tea - not much point unless you only have access to one of them. Montage has both, and offers a very simple blending system - a little experiment quickly shows the differences and what they can do for one another.

Montage has neither "true" analog nor digitally produce analog simulation. The analog I believe Rod is referring to in "both" may be samples (AWM2 engine) of analog equipment which is played back to emulate an analog sound. The big difference is in how AWM2 handles this is in the attack triggering. AWM2 does not yet provide a means for a smooth portamento using AWM2. You can nudge it to something passable - but the limitations discussed in this thread - http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/451366/ - are still present. FM-X does not share this limitation - so FM-X is best suited for generating sounds that need the type of portamento response that the EX5 had in the AN engine (digitally modeled analog). However, the way FM-X accomplishes sound construction is much different than analog. Particularly vintage equipment which had "problems" (or the feature of - if you dig this as many do) of drift and less than determinate states of cap charge and other variables present in analog designs. Note that some of this "drift" and uncertainty can be emulated using motion sequence and pitch/filter targets. So this is a great to have in the toolbox when trying to get something to "sound" analog.

Warmth and other factors are subjective. And perhaps you can warm up FM-X with effects, using the analog outputs, or by choosing a "warm" program (by construction). FM-X is additive and analog is subtractive (fundamentally). Modern synths (including Montage) are hybrids which offer subtractive and additive features in combination. For Montage - you can apply effects which are basically subtractive (filters) for example.

FM-X is a different beast than analog. It's the closest thing we have in Montage to analog in terms of some of the kind of results you can get. But it is certainly not trying to be analog or an analog replacement. Some form of true (or modeled) analog synthesis would complement Montage.

Sometimes the discussion breaks down in academics. What you are trying to get out of your personal concept of analog may or may not completely overlap with what FM-X can do. Or it may be completely out of scope of what FM-X can do. If asking "what's the difference?" then you may not have a developed understanding of what analog is - or how you would use it. Or how the controls to achieve analog modulation on Montage are just different/(or perhaps) limited in certain respects to what can be done on the original analog equipment.

For the power available to you in Montage - there are certain things it just cannot do to reproduce some analog synth sounds (even with sampling) due to differences in architecture. Primarily in modulation control or attack under certain circumstances. But none of this may matter to you depending on what you're trying to do.

Nice response, so yeah there really is a difference. But practically the portamento seems OK, and the tones seem close enough, I did notice that there is now an ADSR, vs AR on the board... so maybe that provides some additional real time controls. So yeah I will probably get a real analog to remind me of my old ARP. But still intrigued with the possibilities of the Montage....

Hello Jason - confused me again! I was working on the AWM2 (Advanced Wave Modulation?) as being sample based and thus Analog in the broad sense. Maybe it's just my own pet concept! But it works for me, and it's a far cry from the algorithm based FM-X (although I accept that experts can make either sound like the other). With the portamento, though, I often find myself tweaking the Attack knob - I'm not a fan of slow starts so far as sound creation is concerned. That depends on the kind of music being composed, of course - but that is the concern of others! And Mitchell - the possibilities with the Montage are pretty well endless ...

@Rod:

Same word "analog" - but different contexts and different meanings from an architecture standpoint. All consumer/pro keyboards have some output jack you can hook up a speaker or earphones to. This is an analog output. Digital keyboards process and produce their sound in the digital domain and then only use analog as an output stage. The OP's reference to an analog keyboard is not for this final output stage. There is a class of keyboards that do not have a digital signal path - they generate/manipulate/process audio purely in the analog domain. This, or something very close to it, is what the OP is referring to.

These days modern analog synths are "mostly" analog then may have digital controls to handle ARPs or may include some digital effects. There may be digital components "touching" analog signal path components - but are primarily used as control devices. And obviously inclusion of MIDI control is going to be a digital system. However, the tone generator will be (for "true analog") primarily analog - something which the Montage is not.

Furthermore, there is an in-between keyboard which models analog digitally. Yamaha has done this in the past with a few different engines. They are digital systems but "model" the properties of analog tone generation. The AN and VL are such engines. AN is an analog modeler and VL is an instrument acoustics model - which is an analog system (brass, woodwinds, etc). There are plugins from IK Multimedia (and Peavey, and ...) which model analog synths (or guitar effects w/tubes in the Peavey case) and simulate the entire circuitry of an analog system in software (digitally). This is not done in Montage. Other current keyboards do something like this.

Given this background - the answer I gave was: is a fully analog keyboard - or modeled analog keyboard the same as FM-X? (ans: no). Can you get "pretty much" the same result with FM-X as full analog or modeled analog? (ans: no).

However, you can overlap some of what fully analog or analog modeling can do with FM-X - including overcoming some issues previously documented with trying to use AWM2 to sample-playback analog keyboards in terms of certain properties (see previous link). Motion sequence goes a long way to enable reproducing the "flavor" of analog when coupled with an FM-X PART. However, the end result will - in many cases - be unique to FM-X. This is where the end result expectations (details) matter - and it is better left to explore by the OP by programming and listening. Something which may be difficult to do pre-sale (attempt to learn FM programming to hear in the store). Running through the FM-X based presets may be something worthwhile although this is someone else's take on what to do with FM-X - so you may be left with a different impression if you don't gravitate towards what the preset programmers chose to showcase.

My take on this: Absolutely FM is a very different beast than analog. There are a lot of sounds which FM can produce which analog cannot. And probably vice versa.

However: When you look at it with a bit different view, then FM-X and the way analog synths are built are conceptually not that far apart. You can look at the FM-X operators as the waveforms generator of an analog synthesizer. In the typical analog synth you have sawtooth, triangle, square, and PWM waves (and in many noise). You can use the FM-X operators to try to mimic those waveforms. You can go quite a way towards that goal with FM-X. Even with only one operator you can now have some sort of saw, etc.. A valid approach might be to just program the basic analog waveforms with FM-X operators and use those as building blocks for analog sounds. That would avoid the complexity of the FM-X programming...

Analog synths usually have multiple oscillators per voice (1-3), you can do the same with multiple operators in FM-X. But of course the FM-X operators can be used to do many more waveforms which are not available in the analog synths and which can vary dramatically over time. On the other hand, many people think that the analog waveforms sound richer and warmer. Personal choice and a relative subtle effect.

Next step is the filters. You have tons of different filters in the Montage, much more than any analog synth I have personally used. The modulation capabilities are also huge. No need to talk about the envelopes, they are as good as it gets! Then comes the amplitude modulation section. Same thing, lots of modulation capabilities and very good envelopes. Those two sections are conceptually the same as in the analog synthesizers, although the sound may be subtly different. But which one sounds better is again personal taste. And the filters and envelopes vary between different analog synths as well. And usually analog synths have a very limited set of filter types available.

After that you have all the effects of the Montage available, which can help to shape the sound in many ways and make it warmer. The newer analog synths also have effects, usually. They are certainly digital and the quality of the effects is personal taste.

Now if you remember that you can have up to 8 FM-X parts (or even 16) sounding at the same time and that you can mix FM-X and the AWM-2 section the possibilities are endless. Note that with AWM-2 you have many waveforms which were samples from those analog synths. You can also add your own or buy the "Phat Analog" packs. With all this I have yet to come across a sound which I could not copy on the Montage in a quality which is absolutely sufficient for my personal taste. And then there is a whole universe of sounds which an analog synth just cannot produce...

As a last comment: There are tons of different analog synths which all sound a bit or even dramatically different. That means, even if you buy some analog synth you just cannot produce the sound of "the analog synth" - there is no such thing. So if you want all the sounds of all the analog synths you will have to buy them all. So in fact, the Montage may bring you closer to your goal of being able to produce many different analog sounds in a good quality.

Thx for the detailed explanations, I know this is topic can be an emotional polarizing conversation especially when looking at legacy. Your experiences and inputs are great.... I am thinking I may just run and get the 6 this afternoon..., if the wife lets me;)

Good luck with your wife :-)-.

Te-he! My wife agreed straight away just to shut me up ... and thanks Jason, it's certainly something of a minefield, perhaps academic to any except purists ... my benchmark for analog-sounding FM is Pianoteq ... can't think of an FM-sounding analog though ...

Just bought a used one, having it shipped as I found a good deal in another state. What do you think of the Easy Sounds packages? They sound awesome, but not sure if necessary?

@Rod - not a purist or being overly technical. When you take milk and shake it - this does not make the beverage a milkshake even though the drink has milk and shaking involved. The defining characteristics is in how the device is put together, not necessarily the end result. Beyond that - there are real differences in the end result which keep Montage from claiming complete replacement of the other. No mine field, opinion, or polarizing division here.

@Mitchell - the Easy Sounds packages have received very positive reviews. There are several threads on various specific ones - so using a search engine to key in this forum plus the sound set from Easy Sounds will bring up various discussions.

https://www.yamahasynth.com/forum/easy-sound-libraries-for-montage
https://www.yamahasynth.com/forum/easy-sounds-new-montage-sound-bank-phat-analog-ii

etc ...

Of course necessity will have to be answered by you - if having run through the presets you find anything lacking. Of course there is the option to tweak sounds, combine performances (or PARTs), program FM-X, etc. But you may elect that purchasing sound sets is the way to go.

Very good dialogue and insights. I owned one of the first Mini-Moog Model D's in 1974 and now have a Montage (which I am thoroughly enjoying exploring). My Montage is NOT like my Mini-Moog. There's a reason Rick Wakeman maintains 4 Mini's in his rig. And, he's added the Montage along with the Kronos that's been in his setup. Perhaps its the preset simplicity of the Mini that is so intoxicating and enduring, but the sound is definitely unique. Do I appreciate Montage FMX less, certainly not - it's fabulous in its dynamics and precision. I love the Montage and miss the Mini - I would want both!

Hello Jason - absolutely no conflict - we just start from different viewpoints because you are an expert, and I'm an amateur! Vive le difference! I don't buy a car because it has a powerful engine or sleek lines - I buy it because the driver's seat is the right height from the ground ... and Mitchell, buying 3rd party soundsets depends entirely on how you use Montage. It is actually a very good synthesiser once you begin to get the hang of it (I suspect your used one is available because someone didn't get the hang of it) and so 3rd party soundsets are not necessary ... however, they can save a great deal of work! I bought Easy Sounds Phat Analog 2 because it contained a whole lot of orchestral sounds - but not Phat Analog 1 or 3 because they contain more 'funny noises' for dance music composers - as do most of the other Easy Sounds soundsets. There's not a lot for straightforward sound composers. The drawback anyway is that I cannot 'publish' (ie: make available) anything that may contain copyright material. so I am restricted only to Yamaha Montage presets 'published' via 'Connect' which does not transmit waveforms. Still allows massive choice, but there's little interest so I don't publish much.

Can't wait... the mini moog sounds on the from Easy Sounds demo are awesome, and the Chick Corea electronic pianos and synth combo demos sounds spot on, but I really can't wait to create my own Performances/Scenes/User Arps, and getting Cubase going. Being an ol Cakewalk user, the Cubase setup docs, and demos make it look fairly straight forward. Il be getting that set up day 1 I suppose as well....

Im guessing the work flow for recording compositions... will be to create a simple tracks for the basic structures (patterns) and commit to audio. Then work on live performances / scenes / tweaks.... and stack them up. Then go back and work on the scratch tracks as necessary.... I suspect the jammin on the live performance along with the scratch tracks will be tremendous fun from day 1.

Already planning out a few ideas to play with... ELO, Floyd, A Day in the Life, Techno Fusion.

The motion sequencer seems like it will be alot of fun to play with....and learn, along with some of the latest effects,

Can't wait....