For the MODX/MODX+ to be compatible for with MONTAGE, you need all eight KBD CTRL Parts to have 8 dual Insertion Effects.

I don't see where anything was said about being compatible with Montage.

This is what was said

It always seemed curious to me that the Montage, (with 2 insertion fx for each of 16 parts) could do 8 parts' worth of seamless sound switching (using half the 16 part's worth at a time), but the MODX (with 2 insertion fx for each of 12 parts), could only do 4, rather than 6 (which would have again been using half the total available fx resources at a time).

I read that as trying to relate the insertion resources available (Montage 32, Modx 24 to the number of resources that could be used by SSS parts (Montage 16, Modx 8).

Montage - 32 total and 16 (half) can be used for SSS
Modx - 24 total but only 8 (one third) can be used for SSS

The question was - why can't 12 (half) of the Modx insertion resources be used for 6 parts?

Think about it…

Tried that - wasn't successful!

[quotePost id=121431]
After switching before pressing a key AWM=127 units continues to be true, FM-X=127 units continues to be true. Then when you press new notes - they will add however many units they would consume depending on the triggered oscillators are FM-X or AWM2. This would dictate which pool gets subtracted. You can only add one oscillator of each engine before notes start dropping.

No - SSS doesn't alter the polyphony rules any.

This is similar to if you were holding the sustain pedal down having keyboard control only on Parts 1-7 then switched to a scene that turns on Part 8's keyboard control (and turns off kbd ctrl on Parts 1-7). The same situation would occur. If Parts 1-7 use up most of the polyphony then adding the Part 8 oscillators to the mix may exceed polyphony and keyboard control, in this case, has no impact on the polyphony rules.

SSS causes notes to still consume polyphony from a previous Performance. So, in that sense, one could say that if SSS didn't exist then we'd know the previous Performance would always cut off during a Performance switch and free up those notes from consuming polyphony. So, yes, SSS gives more opportunity for exceeding polyphony limits. It isn't a tool to save you from exceeding polyphony limits.[/quotePost]
So it sounds like you are saying that SSS is not quite what I thought it was, which was that if I am playing in one Performance, I can switch to the next Performance "seamlessly" without any drops of notes.
But instead, it's not seamless to switch between Performances if you are close to the polyphony limit, as it will start dropping notes from the previous Performance, and that only the effects are seamless between Performances..!? Or if that's not correct, what actually is the "seamless" piece, or what does "seamless" really mean, especially if you are close to Max notes and don't want them to be cutoff or suddenly dropped?

SSS doesn't increase the polyphony pool. If that was an assumption then that would be an incorrect one.

Also, SSS doesn't keep the previous Performance's arpeggios or motion sequences running. You could have a Performance that has the SSS emblem and will keep the notes held over a Performance switch sounding. However, if the ARP and/or motion sequence was a big part of the sound then after the SSS switch those held over notes may sound completely different.

Not seamless in my book, but that's what it is. A limited set of items from the initial Performance that keep making some form of noise.

However, if the ARP and/or motion sequence was a big part of the sound then after the SSS switch those held over notes may sound completely different.

My understanding is that with SSS the existing TONES will continue. Neither an ARP or a sequence is a 'tone' - they cause tones to be generated.

So a switch to a new perf will terminate any ARP or MS - meaning they will no longer produce new tones.

But any existing tones being sounded will continue normally even if they were initiated by an ARP or MS.

The INPUT to the tone generator is terminated when you switch to a new perf. SSS affects the OUTPUT of the tone generator.

A control ARP that slices up a note (a single held note - not talking about arps that "generate" new notes) or, for example, a motion sequence that wobbles the pitch and modulates cutoff will stop all of that and the resulting held notes could have a completely different character than the notes as they were held before the switch.

Take the lipstick and foundation off, you may not recognize the face.

I'm not saying they need to redefine this. Just that "seamless" is a marketing term - not a technical description. So don't fall into the trap of conflating what the feature actually does.

[quotePost id=121436]But instead, it's not seamless to switch between Performances if you are close to the polyphony limit, as it will start dropping notes from the previous Performance, and that only the effects are seamless between Performances..!? Or if that's not correct, what actually is the "seamless" piece, or what does "seamless" really mean, especially if you are close to Max notes and don't want them to be cutoff or suddenly dropped?[/quotePost]
SSS does not increase polyphony. It used to be (e.g. Motif) that when you switched from one performance to another, the entire first performance would cut off. Now, any notes of the first performance that are still held (with fingers or sustain pedal) or still decaying (i.e. in their "release" phase) will continue to sound to completion (that's the "seamless" part)... but still only up to the limit of available polyphony.

As for "only the effects are seamless," that's not right, because effects by themselves make no sound. If they were not carrying over previously played notes, the effects would be silent. What is being carried over seamlessly are notes, along with whatever effects were applied to them. But again, only up to the limits of available polyphony.

[quotePost id=121432]
I don't follow that.

There are two available insert effects per part for parts 1-8. As I understand it SSS doesn't change that at all.
[/quotePost]
There are two available insert effects per part for 12 keyboard-playable parts on the MODX, 16 on the Montage, and you're right, SSS doesn't change that, but SSS is impacted by how many of those parts you have in use (limit of 4 on MODX, 8 on the Montage).

But as to the question about why the MODX limits you to 4 instead of 6, I thought I got it, but on further thought, I don't. 🙁

Ok, I think I have it now.
The Montage only has a max of 256 note polyphony, why would it have more just to make transitioning to a new Performance completely seamless, so it's not that you gain any polyphony, but if you have spare unused polyphony when you do switch Performances (using up to 8 PARTs max) all the spare polyphony can be used, thereby making it seamless as all the most recent notes from the previous Performance will continue to sound/play out and new notes from the new Performance you switch to start eating into the remaining polyphony.
Plus I am guessing that the insert effects for those 8 PARTs of the previous Performance will continue until the notes naturally end &/or the decay of the effect is completed, while at the same time adding the insert effects to the new 8 PARTs of the new Performance that you switch to, thereby making it seamless in both notes and effects.
If the notes were near the max polyphony on the previous Performance, then some of them are going to start dropping as you hit the polyphony wall of the Montage while adding more notes in the PARTs of the new Performance that you switched to. Between the 2 Performances you still only get the max 256 polyphony, but if you are only using ~half the polyphony when switching, and you only use no more than half the polyphony on the new Performance (up until the previous Performance notes are completely decayed), then no notes should be dropped and it will be seamless.

Regarding the 4 PART vs 6 PART SSS on the MODX/MODX+, I am guessing that may just be an OS/software restriction so that the flagship Montage has double the amount of functionality within the SSS feature..!? Yamaha likely don't want to make the MODX/MODX+ too close to the Montage as that would deter sales for the Montage. There is already enough to entice many potential buyers who are weighing whether to buy the Montage or MODX+, to end up purchasing the MODX+ (weight, cost, currently the same polyphony, all the same preset waveforms & Performances, etc.)

I think we seriously digressed. So Montage+ will have 512 poly?

[quotePost id=121441][quotePost id=121432]
I don't follow that.

There are two available insert effects per part for parts 1-8. As I understand it SSS doesn't change that at all.
[/quotePost]
There are two available insert effects per part for 12 keyboard-playable parts on the MODX, 16 on the Montage, and you're right, SSS doesn't change that, but SSS is impacted by how many of those parts you have in use (limit of 4 on MODX, 8 on the Montage).

But as to the question about why the MODX limits you to 4 instead of 6, I thought I got it, but on further thought, I don't. :-([/quotePost]

From what Paul's saying, and that this number hasn't changed in the + models of MODX, I think this is a "CPU horsepower issue", or marketing choice.

Another way to express what Paul's saying might be this:

Voices are defined by the Envelope Generators etc, and these voice definitions are shared with the Effects unit/portion of the hardware, which is somewhat/significantly responsible for both the tone creation AND the effects.

// I'd always presumed there was an intermediate tone generator somewhere, this is probably wrong, from what Paul's suggesting... that they merged tone generation and effects.

It would seem Yamaha didn't include a second "CPU" in the MODX+ so it's limited to half the tone and effects processing of the Montage, still, when push comes to shove during SSS transitions. Hence my earlier suggesting that an increase in FM-X polyphony in the + models is probably an optimisation, or a tradeoff having been made.

// I think they've given up on the idea of making multi-part FM-X drum Parts, so can now expand the polyphony of FM-X as the headroom they would have required for these is no longer needed. This means they could probably easily double the Polyphony of the Montage FM-X now, too.

In this line of thought, the limitation to twelve parts with effects on MODX probably indicates that the Montage, if it had 24 Parts, could apply effects and tone creation on all of them, but that there's other overheads to doing SSS transitions. Or it's just marketing choices.

[quotePost id=121444]
It would seem Yamaha didn't include a second "CPU" in the MODX+ so it's limited to half the tone and effects processing of the Montage, still, when push comes to shove during SSS transitions. Hence my earlier suggesting that an increase in FM-X polyphony in the + models is probably an optimisation, or a tradeoff having been made.
[/quotePost]
Or they did add a second "CPU" and it's a marketing decision..!? If nothing changed in the hardware and the MODX+ still only has one SWP70 tone generator, then the FM-X polyphony in the MODX was a marketing decision all this time and was being throttled by the OS, not by hardware limitations.
It could still be possible that they did add a second SWP70 in the MODX+, increased the polyphony due to the extra hardware processing, but not to it's full potential & left the SSS back at 4 PARTs, as a marketing decision, so that the MODX+ still has some lower functionality compared to the Montage, and especially with whatever might be coming as a Montage replacement..!?

We know that the MODX did 128+64 polyphony on 1 single tone generator, so the Montage is likely capable of more than just 128+128. I think we will likely see an increase in polyphony with both the AWM2 & FM-X engines at some point in the future, possibly even more if they do add the 3rd AN-X engine into the mix...
I think Yamaha would have to keep the MODX+ and Montage+? separated in polyphony & SSS so that their flagship Montage(+)? has more power than the less expensive MODX+ (just like between the Montage and MODX).

My guess is that there is a second SWP70 in the MODX+ for the purpose of a new AN-X engine that is coming around the time they announce the Montage+ (either June 1 or early September), but they are going to throttle polyphony and SSS in the OS so that the new Montage+ maintains 1.5 times the polyphony and double the SSS PARTs. There might even be increased memory in the new Montage+, but that would require that they added additional physical memory similar to the Genos..!?

Just for fun, if Yamaha does add the AN-X to both the MODX+ & a Montage+, and we find out that the MODX+ does have the second "CPU", would it be likely that the MODX+ would end up having 128+128+128 polyphony and the Montage+ have 192+192+192 polyphony..!?
I could just be preparing to wear egg on my face though :p

I think they saved at least 8 "parts" of FM-X and enough polyphony, in both devices, to add a drum "Part" comprised of 8 sub-parts of FM-X, just like an AWM2 Part can be used. And that this was planned for sometime in the lifecycle, but that they struggled to get the parameter jumps to work fast enough, which is how we got SmartMorph as a "feature", with its aliasing demonstrating this problem.

I've said it before, I think SmartMorph was a test rig that revealed the shortcoming, and got repurposed as a "feature". It doesn't make any sense, in any other way, as to how it came to be.

Imagine an 8 "sub Parts" FM-X drum Part, of 8 different configs of FM-X to make 8 different drum sounds from a single part. This is theoretical possible, and what SmartMorph does for all kinds of sounds, but also reveals, through the aliasing, that there's too much delay in changing all parameters for it to work properly as a drum kit.

ie. FM-X is amazingly good at impact sounds, but each single part can only easily make one type of sound, and changing all the parameters to make a different type of sound doesn't seem to happen fast enough to have 8 "sub parts" of different settings.

I don't think we'll see a Montage replacement, I think we'll see a new model/lineage of product that is a full workstation, but is some ways off in the future, because it's going to take a huge effort of coding and design to make a modern workstation that leapfrogs the Roland Fantom, and the Montage way isn't a good base from which to do that.

In the meantime, we'll probably get an uncorked Montage+ wherein that previously reserved extra headroom of FM-X polyphony and some AWM2 polyphony are released.

My gut feeling is that it's probably hard for the hardware to impersonate Analogue oscillators, so any AN-X addition would have quite low polyphony as they might have to use FM-X operators to shape the waves.

I dont' know anything about any technical issues related hereto and I don't know how and why the Smart Morp ultimately came to be. But as a person who doesn't know and doesn't have time to learn how to program FM-X I think that at least for me it makes very much sense as to how and why the Smart Morph may (also) have come to be: with the Smart Morph feature a person like me can use the Montage to create some pretty awesome hybrid sounds or new FM-X sounds without diving into programming! So at least from my perspective the Smart Morph feature may have come to be simply as a kind of great means/device to make new sounds and/or combine existing ones.

[quotePost id=121449]I dont' know anything about any technical issues related hereto and I don't know how and why the Smart Morp ultimately came to be. But as a person who doesn't know and doesn't have time to learn how to program FM-X I think that at least for me it makes very much sense as to how and why the Smart Morph may (also) have come to be: with the Smart Morph feature a person like me can use the Montage to create some pretty awesome hybrid sounds or new FM-X sounds without diving into programming! So at least from my perspective the Smart Morph feature may have come to be simply as a kind of great means/device to make new sounds and/or combine existing ones.
[/quotePost]

I had this kind of line of thought, too... then watched them do NOTHING about promoting, teaching or even elucidating upon this potential side effect benefit of using it in this manner. And then experimented with it in this manner. Some finds, some flails and fails. But it's luck based, and there's truly jarring "transitions" from differing "oscillator" types rather than smooth steps through them, that you might get/expect with an actually Smart Morphing. See just about every synth from the last dozen or so years that has morphing oscillators between triangle, saw, square - and PWM upon their shapes, too.

Roland had this "smart morph" on the Fantom first and not just for one engine but all types (can't recall exactly) and I thought Yamaha copied that idea and added it to the Montage to offer something similar. I thought it was more of a competition motivation but I don't think Yamaha came up with that exclusively. Funny that Yamaha invented the FM/DX or bought it (was actually going to be used for combat) but couldn't make FM simple enough to use. Korg did it for nothing on the Opsix (super simple) and now SmartMorph will automatically do it for you or luck of the draw.

So I have the CK DX/FM here using samples I assume and the YC using the FM engine. I can't honestly tell any difference between them. Typically it's about a $500 upcharge for real FM at the checkout. If it's not usable on YC why add it? I suppose it was for the FM organs mainly which are great. I guess it makes sense for YC and Montage to have it. It was crazy that a $6K CP1 had a real FM engine but could have make (4) similar sounds. They dumbed it down somehow but if it could make (4) FM sounds it could also make millions so kind of stupid not to allow for that capability when the generator is sitting inside doing nothing. It's like having a 12 or 16 cylinder race car but you can only drive 5mph.

If the MODX+ is a relatively a cheap or affordable synth I would doubt it has hidden capabilities or extra components because such capabilities and components translate into more money. I doubt Yamaha is giving hidden hardware away in secret so they can pull a rabbit out of their hat down the road. I think I was quoted about $1,300 for the 61 so it's barely more than the stage CK. Likely manufactured for 1/3rd that price say $500. How much hidden tech and clips can you hide away within that pricepoint? $50 worth? Someone can do the math to determine what stuff costs and what you're getting.