Did the test and..
Only one voice.

Hi Joe,
Steps to fix the “simple test” manually:

1) Start from INIT AWM2
2) Switch on all Elements in Part 1.
3) Turn down all Elements in Part 1
4) Copy Part 1 to Part 2-8.
5) Go to back to Part 1 and turn up Element 1
6) Play two notes on the keyboard and listen to the results

Your “polyphony test” (sic) appears not to do anything but point out that priority is given to Elements starting at Element 1, in Part 1, and probably last is given to Element 8, In Part 8. You’re looking at the polyphony count from the wrong end. What if (since you’re guessing) Element 1, in Part 1 is “reserved”. In fact, Part 8, Element 8 is absolutely, least likely. To build a system that reserves the very, very last Element....Hurts the head to even think about it). It is the least likely to have any priority, n’est pas?

Activate PART 1, Element 1, not PART 8, Element 8

Conspiracy Theory:
During the last couple of months, I personally have been spending my time testing the new firmware version. It was not apart of my priority list to test a “theory” in 1.60. I was on another firmware entirely. Although I continued to answer questions, those I felt that I could, I had to prioritize my time. And frankly, that meant testing the new firmware, not returning to 1.60 to execute your test. The needs of the many (All MONTAGE User who eventually will benefit from version 2.00) outweighed the needs of the one (your polyphony challenge) Sorry, that was a reality for me. And no, I couldn’t just say to you “sorry I’m testing new firmware.”

As for engineering, they were busy getting a version of the new firmware ready for us to show for last weekend’s NAMM Show. That was their priority (thankfully). So we did not press them with your *demands for an answer*. We sent your “test” to engineering. And, if and when, we hear from them about it, we’ll be certain to pass it along. Forgive us if we were (all) a little busy.

MHO: Your “test” is flawed -in my opinion-, because it doesn’t take into account how the instrument actually works. It’s interesting but nothing more than that.
If you do the modification listed above, seems your polyphony test has a hole in it. But I’m not a design engineer. We’ll wait to see what they say.

Btw- You should not be surprised when your thread went feral, ‘conspiracy theorist’ love a controversy even a small one. Seriously, you started by being just curious about how polyphony worked, but instead of just asking a question, you decided to “invent” a polyphony test. And the conspiracies are off and running.... perhaps not your fault.

I’m sure the actual test to count polyphony is completely different from the one you developed here... (I’m pretty sure 🙂 I'm also pretty sure when they claim it is 128 notes of stereo polyphony AWM2, and 128 notes of FM-X polyphony, that those are facts.
Back with SY99, the polyphony test was done with front panel LEDs: you got a red light for AFM, a green light for each AWM2, and and amber light for the combination... 16 Panel lights is all it took because the polyphony back then was 16+16 (ha, ha)!

When we hear a response we’ll pass along the info... in the meantime consider the importance of Part 1, not only as the “anchor” of the Performance Name and Category, but as the logical place to start the normal polyphony count. Remember to always ask yourself an important question: Any theories I have about “how it should work...” are based on what, exactly?

The silver lining here is that engineering has been notified of the (possible) issue with polyphony and have the method used to test this. There's rationale for some delay in the testing due to reasonable efforts. Also, we've seen another concern (flash memory) fully addressed by engineering - so there is some precedence for "closing the loop" on user concerns - even ones with similar tone.

This is where I would "wish" there is some patience and possibly a non-confrontational follow-up in a week or so. The OP is free to handle this however they see fit, however. Thanks for indulging.

I believe all conspiracy theories because it's highly likely that someone's bending a rule somewhere just to see if it will break. 😉

To all, please understand me now:

I am using the polyphony of the Montage up in the way I'm using it. My "Polyphony Test" is completely relevant to the way I'm personally using my Montage. Performances with 64 Elements all active at once for example. Or any smaller subset of that (which, trickles down to all other possible uses of polyphony). It is amazing what I'm able to do with the Montage. I love it. I am a happy Montage owner. There's no resentment for Yamaha here. Only annoyance at Forum responses that derail from the actual questions being asked. Please have curtesy, and let me find out the answers without commentary or changing the subject to pointless, heated, and irrational debates.

I would like to know how the polyphony has been designed to work. It has occurred to me that most of you probably don't use the Montage the way I am so my questions may seem irrelevant to you. If my question is irrelevant to the way you use your Montage, then please don't bother replying or discussing it, or have curtesy when doing so. I'm only looking for answers so I can manage what I'm doing with the Montage and would prefer a detailed response from Yamaha Engineering about how the 128 Polyphony is supposed to work. I'm only interested in whatever the facts are.

Please don't derail the thread again.

Believe me, if you were having as much fun as me with the Montage the way I'm using it (which is so much!) you would want to know the answers to these questions too. I'm using all the polyphony, I'm using the Montage in a way you may not be.

I'm looking forward to the engineering response. I'm not interested in igniting any other discussion or speculation or conspiracy or anything with any foul intent. I genuinely want to know. I'm asking because I want to know so that I can do xyz. I think if you've read anything I've personally written on this forum, it's most often answering a question specifically (in order to be helpful) or asking a specific question (so I can better understand the instrument). This is no different. All of the extreme banter that has unfortunately eroded my questions has annoyed me but I'm persisting because I am keen to know the answers.

I'm developing polyphony management work-arounds in Max Msp as we speak and have been for weeks. And I've made something really damn cool.

I'm looking forward to understanding deeper how this instrument can be pushed to it's limits in all directions. Polyphony is one of those questions.

Respect.

Bad Mister wrote:

Hi Joe,
Steps to fix the “simple test” manually:

1) Start from INIT AWM2
2) Switch on all Elements in Part 1.
3) Turn down all Elements in Part 1
4) Copy Part 1 to Part 2-8.
5) Go to back to Part 1 and turn up Element 1
6) Play two notes on the keyboard and listen to the results

Thanks but no.

Bad Mister wrote:
Your “polyphony test” (sic) appears not to do anything but point out that priority is given to Elements starting at Element 1, in Part 1, and probably last is given to Element 8, In Part 8. You’re looking at the polyphony count from the wrong end. What if (since you’re guessing) Element 1, in Part 1 is “reserved”. In fact, Part 8, Element 8 is absolutely, least likely. To build a system that reserves the very, very last Element....Hurts the head to even think about it). It is the least likely to have any priority, n’est pas?

Yes I understand this and has been denoted as an observation by me when I first brought this up. More information would be good regarding this etc.

Bad Mister wrote:
Conspiracy Theory:
During the last couple of months, I personally have been spending my time testing the new firmware version. It was not apart of my priority list to test a “theory” in 1.60. I was on another firmware entirely. Although I continued to answer questions, those I felt that I could, I had to prioritize my time. And frankly, that meant testing the new firmware, not returning to 1.60 to execute your test. The needs of the many (All MONTAGE User who eventually will benefit from version 2.00) outweighed the needs of the one (your polyphony challenge) Sorry, that was a reality for me. And no, I couldn’t just say to you “sorry I’m testing new firmware.”

All good. Thanks for your reply now.

Bad Mister wrote:
As for engineering, they were busy getting a version of the new firmware ready for us to show for last weekend’s NAMM Show. That was their priority (thankfully). So we did not press them with your *demands for an answer*. We sent your “test” to engineering. And, if and when, we hear from them about it, we’ll be certain to pass it along. Forgive us if we were (all) a little busy.

All good, but I was polite and cheeky. Never demanding thanks.

Bad Mister wrote:
MHO: Your “test” is flawed -in my opinion-, because it doesn’t take into account how the instrument actually works.

Yes, and this is exactly what I'm asking, how does the instrument actually work..

Bad Mister wrote:
If you do the modification listed above, seems your polyphony test has a hole in it.

(Or maybe your understanding of my question has a hole in it)

Bad Mister wrote:
But I’m not a design engineer. We’ll wait to see what they say.

🙂

Bad Mister wrote:
Btw- You should not be surprised when your thread went feral, ‘conspiracy theorist’ love a controversy even a small one. Seriously, you started by being just curious about how polyphony worked, but instead of just asking a question, you decided to “invent” a polyphony test. And the conspiracies are off and running.... perhaps not your fault.

Absolutely not my fault. My heart is in the right place, it seeks knowledge and reality and isn't interested in speculation (unless delivered in the form of art).

Bad Mister wrote:
Remember to always ask yourself an important question: Any theories I have about “how it should work...” are based on what, exactly?

Answer: A yearning to know and understand more about this instrument and it's abilities so that I can adjust my workflow to take it into consideration. For this I need details. To get those details one has to probe, experiment, discover what's what, ask questions etc. In fact, in this instance, I am completely open to the facts of how it works, not how I think it "should" work and have said so all along.

Cheers