I think we just got mooned. :p

Do we really know the reason why Yamaha decided not to implement a decent sequencer and sampler into Montage?
I can just presume because they want to lead us using more and more their own software sequencer, Cubase.
It might be a good idea, but I don't like to be forced using a software sequencer I should learn from scratch. I'm a MotU Performer user since 1992, actually running an updated release of this wonderful piece of software.
I would like Yamaha provided also some tutorial about integrating DP with Montage, not only articles about Cubase and Live.

Really? I find Cubase fairly easy to use.... although I am spending most of my time learning how to master this Montage beast...and I do not miss the sequencer any more...after learning what I can do live on this board. When I need to record the interface to the laptop is sweet and works fine. I have to admit it did take me a few months to figure out the basic necessities (mostly on the board, haven't spent too much time in Cubase), and from there my workflow evolved to match the power and sweetness of the board. Yeah change is tough sometimes but the new boundaries, and many new possibilities, create great learning and playing experiences. My guess is that if you want an onboard sequencer you will have get a different model. At least on this planet.

Got to admit I'm 50/50 on this. Yes, a built in sequencer would be helpful, but on the other hand it's not really necessary with outboard software and other recording techniques available to the average home user/composer.

What I have found recently is that when playing a sequence from an external daw via the USB port, it works fine, except that the keyboard does not let you pick the part you’d like to play. And, when you load the same sequence into the Montage so it can try to play it, it fails because it does not default to the midi/GM performance, so any patch changes load performances. What I recommend Yamaha programmers to do is 1) make the default performance midi/gm; 2) load the GM voice/patch selectables with the best single channel performances; 3) do this when the play button is pressed. The os is a program and it can be made to do whatever is desired. I like the KISS method. My problem with an added link in the chain when performing is when Windows says you need to reboot or Norton is scanning!

I have the Roland FA06. Ii really like to work with the internal seqencer. I try to figure out how to use the Roland FA Sequencer with my Montage 8 but don't no how to set up and if it will work ok. The Montage 8 sounds are great .I have the option to return it to the store within 25 days. I hope somebody can tell me how to do the setup...

regards Ron

@Peter:

https://www.yamahasynth.com/blog/montage-connect

Montage Connect lets you set a default performance that's recalled when you use the DAW.

Also, now you can both set Montage to power-on in Live-Set, place the kind of initialized performance you want to power-on with inside the Live-Set, and tell Montage to load up that Live-Set slot at power-on.

No firmware or other mods needed - you just need to setup what you want.

It doesn't work as you press the play button. Some of the things you're requesting would impair other uses for these features.

As cool as that would be, I just don't think it's part of the Montage project plan. I believe the Montage is just about finished with regards to OS updates. This is it gang so enjoy it for what it is. Can't believe I just typed that...:/

Mitchell wrote:

Really? I find Cubase fairly easy to use.... although I am spending most of my time learning how to master this Montage beast...and I do not miss the sequencer any more...after learning what I can do live on this board. When I need to record the interface to the laptop is sweet and works fine. I have to admit it did take me a few months to figure out the basic necessities (mostly on the board, haven't spent too much time in Cubase), and from there my workflow evolved to match the power and sweetness of the board. Yeah change is tough sometimes but the new boundaries, and many new possibilities, create great learning and playing experiences. My guess is that if you want an onboard sequencer you will have get a different model. At least on this planet.

Cubase by itself is one thing, and Montage by itself is quite simple to use, but using Cubase seamlessly with Montage is another level a lot of people won't find easy at all. If you do decide to integrate Montage with Cubase as the sequencer you'll quickly find out why users want a sequencer in Montage itself. You need intermediate if not advanced knowledge of MIDI to develop a workflow using Montage and Cubase together (with Cubase being the sequencer).

Cubase by itself is one thing, and Montage by itself is quite simple to use, but using Cubase seamlessly with Montage is another level a lot of people won't find easy at all. If you do decide to integrate Montage with Cubase as the sequencer you'll quickly find out why users want a sequencer in Montage itself. You need intermediate if not advanced knowledge of MIDI to develop a workflow using Montage and Cubase together (with Cubase being the sequencer).

I'm at the business end (no pun intended) of scores of questions a week on this very subject. And it is time musicians got at least an intermediate knowledge of MIDI.

What, in fact, is happening is a "standard" workaround that many have been using for years will no longer work as a workaround with MONTAGE... and that's the stumbling block. To me, the frustrating thing is these folks don't even recognize that their "old workaround" just simply needs to updated. Slowly but surely more are coming to this realization.

The majority of folks that "Sequence" MIDI in DAWs are working in (for the lack of a better name) the standard General MIDI method... which is a kind of one Track, one instrument, one channel workflow. Each MIDI Track is a separate channel, and Tracks are built one at a time. Many have developed a cheat (a workaround) were they change the MIDI channel of their receiving device so as to stack multiple sounds on a channel. They have gotten so used to doing this it is not even seen for what it is, a workaround... because the synth wasn't able to build the sound they needed in a single program. They can't send separate program changes to these layered parts because they are on the same Receive channel. In fact controller options are down to opt in or opt out... everybody on the channel changes together or not at all. Oh, it's a workaround all right. Just used so often it's like an old shoe.

The difference in MONTAGE is instead of layering by setting the multiple Parts on the same Receive channel, you simply Transmit the same data on multiple Tracks. This allows each transmitting gesture to be customized within the receiving Part... it opens some new opportunities. Once you get your head around that, it's not so complicated.

In the scores of folks I talk with I've begun to notice that slightly more than half (scary) are recording MIDI Tracks, mostly out of habit, not for the principal reasons to record MIDI data (error correction, notation, etc.). And many more make the mistake of pre-mixing volumes during MIDI playback, and windup with audio tracks that are level deficient. This happens, all too often, when you overdub your String/Pad sound while playing back the rhythm section Tracks... naturally you want this Pad sound softly floating in the background... so you play lightly, velocities at about 40-50... Later, is when I get the call, "the individual Tracks hardly move my audio meters" or they blame the gear, proclaiming "Yamaha synthesizers have weak individual output levels..." when in fact, it's their weak MIDI velocities that render the weak levels. Had you considered audio level first you wouldn't fall into this trap.

MIDI MIXING can be avoided if you *think audio* as the ultimate goal... set your levels so that audio recording is optimized, build your musical 'monitor' mix (the balance you give the players) as a submix of your recorded/optimized levels.

It's old-school thinking but it works because it is founded in the fundamentals of multi-track recording. Having a plan about your recording is necessary. This is a professional tool. There is no one way to work, but there are good, better and best practices.

For one thing capturing data as MIDI should be for a reason.
Some use MONTAGE as a 16 Part multi-timbral tone engine (like the Motif XF before it, the 1-1-1 GM paradigm)
Some have learned to break the 16 Part limit by rendering audio, then reusing the MONTAGE hardware for more musical parts.
A combination of MIDI-recording and Audio-rendering is the real strength of the workflow you'll begin to develop if you want to get the most out of the MONTAGE. Unprecedented audio routing flexibility (as many as 32-bus outputs) means you can route and process your MONTAGE sounds with boutique grade Insertion Effects, at audio setting 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, or even 192kHz... with pristine 24-bit quality.

Because the nature of the MONTAGE is you can use it in the standard GM one track/one Part/one channel paradigm, or you can use MONTAGE as a single instrument that combines multiple internal Parts to create "mega" instruments with lots of control and articulations. These are bigger than your one track paradigm, and you can't just easily control these bigger programs on a single MIDI channel (actually you can but it requires you commit the data to audio sooner... if you use eight Parts to create your strings and brass, you've used half of your Multi timbral capability... so rendering audio is going to be a major portion of your MONTAGE workflow.

That's it in a nutshell. If you are not afraid of this adjustment (or these adjustments), then there are other new workarounds to be found... but you can either fight the changes or find new ways to adapt. We are in that time between MIDI 1.0 as we've always known it and MIDI 2.0 which will probably let you continue to work as you always have, but expect to not be able to take advantage of some of the newer innovations.

What I can execute with multiple Part Brass Ensemble sounds and multiple Part String orchestra sounds, I find that I'm adding these to my DAW directly as audio overdubs. When I'm executing the various brass articulation, for example, or if I'm morphing String ensembles and solo string lines... I'm finding my edits are not so much MIDI based any more. I'm not controlling cc messages in the DAW, rather I find myself editing the synth behavior to my controller gestures. As in the "Tenor to the Montage" tutorial, if you are morphing growl Element level from the normal tone, you are simultaneously crossfading amongst four Elements... adjustments to how this behaves is a synth edit more than it's a cc message edit.

New Rules... embrace them (or not). And fortunately, you know nothing about the future plans... Yamaha has announced that the MONTAGE will definitely continue to see future updates... so Fess, 'fess up, you're just making that up when you say it's just about finished... Right?

Fess wrote:

As cool as that would be, I just don't think it's part of the Montage project plan. I believe the Montage is just about finished with regards to OS updates. This is it gang so enjoy it for what it is. Can't believe I just typed that...:/

I really hope not,. It would be foolish of Yamaha not to keep upgrading the OS's for Montage as there so much more the Montage can do that's not incorporated in it yet. I for one hope the next update doesn't take long to come out. Just my opinion, but it's no where near the end of updates....

"Or did you destroy that technology for ever just as NASA did?"

Actually, this tech evolved into the sequencer in the PSR, Tyros, Genos product lines. These products are based on the Yamaha XG architecture and are a good example of Phil's "General MIDI' sequencing model. [Nice explanation by Phil.]

Folks in the PSR, etc. forums are squawking for improvements in the sequencer. It's the Internets, of course. 🙂

I've still gotta alotta of love for my QY70. But, the heavy lifting goes to Sonar and Cubase.

All the best -- pj

Bad Mister wrote:

Cubase by itself is one thing, and Montage by itself is quite simple to use, but using Cubase seamlessly with Montage is another level a lot of people won't find easy at all. If you do decide to integrate Montage with Cubase as the sequencer you'll quickly find out why users want a sequencer in Montage itself. You need intermediate if not advanced knowledge of MIDI to develop a workflow using Montage and Cubase together (with Cubase being the sequencer).

I'm at the business end (no pun intended) of scores of questions a week on this very subject. And it is time musicians got at least an intermediate knowledge of MIDI.

What, in fact, is happening is a "standard" workaround that many have been using for years will no longer work as a workaround with MONTAGE... and that's the stumbling block. To me, the frustrating thing is these folks don't even recognize that their "old workaround" just simply needs to updated. Slowly but surely more are coming to this realization.

The majority of folks that "Sequence" MIDI in DAWs are working in (for the lack of a better name) the standard General MIDI method... which is a kind of one Track, one instrument, one channel workflow. Each MIDI Track is a separate channel, and Tracks are built one at a time. Many have developed a cheat (a workaround) were they change the MIDI channel of their receiving device so as to stack multiple sounds on a channel. They have gotten so used to doing this it is not even seen for what it is, a workaround... because the synth wasn't able to build the sound they needed in a single program. They can't send separate program changes to these layered parts because they are on the same Receive channel. In fact controller options are down to opt in or opt out... everybody on the channel changes together or not at all. Oh, it's a workaround all right. Just used so often it's like an old shoe.

The difference in MONTAGE is instead of layering by setting the multiple Parts on the same Receive channel, you simply Transmit the same data on multiple Tracks. This allows each transmitting gesture to be customized within the receiving Part... it opens some new opportunities. Once you get your head around that, it's not so complicated.

In the scores of folks I talk with I've begun to notice that slightly more than half (scary) are recording MIDI Tracks, mostly out of habit, not for the principal reasons to record MIDI data (error correction, notation, etc.). And many more make the mistake of pre-mixing volumes during MIDI playback, and windup with audio tracks that are level deficient. This happens, all too often, when you overdub your String/Pad sound while playing back the rhythm section Tracks... naturally you want this Pad sound softly floating in the background... so you play lightly, velocities at about 40-50... Later, is when I get the call, "the individual Tracks hardly move my audio meters" or they blame the gear, proclaiming "Yamaha synthesizers have weak individual output levels..." when in fact, it's their weak MIDI velocities that render the weak levels. Had you considered audio level first you wouldn't fall into this trap.

MIDI MIXING can be avoided if you *think audio* as the ultimate goal... set your levels so that audio recording is optimized, build your musical 'monitor' mix (the balance you give the players) as a submix of your recorded/optimized levels.

It's old-school thinking but it works because it is founded in the fundamentals of multi-track recording. Having a plan about your recording is necessary. This is a professional tool. There is no one way to work, but there are good, better and best practices.

For one thing capturing data as MIDI should be for a reason.
Some use MONTAGE as a 16 Part multi-timbral tone engine (like the Motif XF before it, the 1-1-1 GM paradigm)
Some have learned to break the 16 Part limit by rendering audio, then reusing the MONTAGE hardware for more musical parts.
A combination of MIDI-recording and Audio-rendering is the real strength of the workflow you'll begin to develop if you want to get the most out of the MONTAGE. Unprecedented audio routing flexibility (as many as 32-bus outputs) means you can route and process your MONTAGE sounds with boutique grade Insertion Effects, at audio setting 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz, or even 192kHz... with pristine 24-bit quality.

Because the nature of the MONTAGE is you can use it in the standard GM one track/one Part/one channel paradigm, or you can use MONTAGE as a single instrument that combines multiple internal Parts to create "mega" instruments with lots of control and articulations. These are bigger than your one track paradigm, and you can't just easily control these bigger programs on a single MIDI channel (actually you can but it requires you commit the data to audio sooner... if you use eight Parts to create your strings and brass, you've used half of your Multi timbral capability... so rendering audio is going to be a major portion of your MONTAGE workflow.

That's it in a nutshell. If you are not afraid of this adjustment (or these adjustments), then there are other new workarounds to be found... but you can either fight the changes or find new ways to adapt. We are in that time between MIDI 1.0 as we've always known it and MIDI 2.0 which will probably let you continue to work as you always have, but expect to not be able to take advantage of some of the newer innovations.

What I can execute with multiple Part Brass Ensemble sounds and multiple Part String orchestra sounds, I find that I'm adding these to my DAW directly as audio overdubs. When I'm executing the various brass articulation, for example, or if I'm morphing String ensembles and solo string lines... I'm finding my edits are not so much MIDI based any more. I'm not controlling cc messages in the DAW, rather I find myself editing the synth behavior to my controller gestures. As in the "Tenor to the Montage" tutorial, if you are morphing growl Element level from the normal tone, you are simultaneously crossfading amongst four Elements... adjustments to how this behaves is a synth edit more than it's a cc message edit.

New Rules... embrace them (or not). And fortunately, you know nothing about the future plans... Yamaha has announced that the MONTAGE will definitely continue to see future updates... so Fess, 'fess up, you're just making that up when you say it's just about finished... Right?

Thank you for reiterating that users should have an intermediate knowledge of MIDI BM, lol. I think that's part of the overlying issue; most users are not adept with MIDI configurations and are hesitant to dig deeper- and once you add a DAW MIDI gets confusing with channels, CCs, MSB, LSB, NRPNS, Sysex...yeah it can easily get confusing. Coming from a Motif XF the first thing I had to accept is that Montage 'needed' Cubase in order for me, the user, to really understand it's potential as a major tool for conceptualizing, arranging, and using effects to help complete a song. Montage and Cubase are a fantastic combination if you take the time to develop a workflow-which I have-with your help BM, as well as a couple of other talented people on these forums. I have been assimilated lol. And I was being honest about how I felt about further development; I think it's pretty much a juggernaut how it is- a beast with the 2.0 update allowing users to import Motif XS/XF performances. I'm sure the few bugs discovered will be worked out soon so once that's done I would be more than happy with what is and does right now. I find that with a lot of synths and workstations, the user is always waiting and waiting for things to be added, but this isn't the case with Montage. It's meant to be used with a DAW and once you take the time to configure Montage with your DAW for your particular workflow, the sky is the limit.
That being said, a sequencer in the Montage...while it would be stellar I just don't think it will ever be added to the feature set, and I'm very ok with that.

The Montage concept vs. the previous generation presents different workflows. When features were taken away without a "free" path to replace the previous functionality (like sampling) I wasn't too happy with the strategy. However, for sampling - Sample Robot is hopefully plugging that hole so that's good. It's a different workflow - not all can be done on-board and there's another piece of software to learn (not MIDI exactly - but there will be some learning curve). I'm OK with this although some may prefer the all-in-one (swiss army) approach that requires no computer.

For the sequencer, there's a similar approach. The feature was taken away from the flagship synth as an on-board feature - but since day 1 there has been a software+PC replacement. Again, a learning curve - but at least there's something to fill that void. For me the biggest "miss" are some simple features of the sequencer to clean up user ARPs - but this is only for "on the road" editing. It's easier (for me) ultimately to use software. Setup is done once - there are plenty of tutorials to guide this process. Notes can be edited with a musical staff or piano roll which is closer to the hardware sequencer paradigm. This said, different users are at different places with what they tolerate using - so certainly the software approach may alienate some users.

For those, there's still the option of paying a tax (less than $100) for a hardware sequencer to pair with Montage. Something like the "Arturia BeatStep Controller & Sequencer". It has a MIDI out so it can be connected to Montage.

Also, for only replacing the hardware sequencer - there are other options than Cubase out there. Possibly others with less options and more targeted that only provide something similar to the hardware sequencer experience in a stand-alone program. Some free, some not.

Not dismissing the request here - I see both sides. Hopefully each user will arrive at a suitable solution for their needs.