Fantom has something called a "structure" where half of the partials (2) can act as modulators and half (2) can act as carriers. The relationship of the modulator to carrier can vary: "SYNC" mode will reset the carrier's oscillator according to the modulator's pitch cycle. I'd have to have a demo to make sense out of that. There's "RING" mode where the modulator's output multiplies with the carrier. Then there's "XMOD" (cross modulation) where the modulator's output affects the pitch of the carrier. "XMOD2" is cross-modulation of the VA (virtual analog) engine only. Most other modes apply to both VA and sampled (PCM) modes. There are other parameters to control the depth/level of various partials in the structure along with phase control for XMOD2.

LFO Modulation.

Waveforms: Sine, Triangle, Saw Up, Saw Down, Square, Random, Trapezoid, Sample & Hold, Chaos, Sine with randomly varied amplitude, Step (fixed pattern with 16 steps)

Along with "normal" settings like offset, rate, and sync - there are interesting "spice" parameters like "rate detune". This will vary the rate of the LFO each time you press a key. You can set how much change to expect from every key press (subtle change to a higher degree).

When modulating pitch, Fantom provides details how to achieve specific note values. Examples: when pitch depth is 51, step values in multiples of 6 will achieve up to one octave of change (6*12 = 72, the maximum setting - so each step of 6 is a chromatic note or semi-tone. Steps of 3 - you can do microtonal exactly half-way between two notes). Different pitch depths have a "table" of how to achieve a range of 2 or 3 octaves total. Each of these tables get you to chromatic notes. For a 3-octave note range, your steps are limited to 2 - which gives you only quarter tones and not other microtones (like available for 2 or 1 octave range).

LFO can affect pitch, filtar, pan, amplitude, or can be a source for "matrix control". In this sense, the LFO is similar in high-level operation as Montage's motion sequence.

Other than LFO1/2, "matrix control" sources (maximum count of 4 at a time - compared to Montage which has many more possible sources. 8 assignable knobs per PART, mod wheel, pitch bend, aftertouch, buttons, etc -- lots more - 16 at a time per PART) can be:

Sources:
CC1-95 (excluding CC32).
Pitch bend, Aftertouch,
Syscontrol 1-4. This one is a bit different. You can set 4 MIDI messages as system control messages and this counts as one source (4-in-1), MIDI messages are CC1-95(except 32), aftertouch, pitch bend. Suitable for control by an external MIDI controller.
Velocity (Montage doesn't have velocity as a source - you have to use an envelope follower to simulate this - not quite the same),
pitch envelope, filter envelope, amplitude envelope (Montage doesn't support these as sources).

Destinations:
Pitch, Cutoff, Resonance, Level (volume), pan, chorus amount, reverb amount, LFO1 or LFO2 pitch depth, LFO1 or 2 filter depth, LFO1 or 2 amplitude depth, LFO 1 or 2 pan depth, LFO rate (if LFO is not set to sync to note values - can speed/slow down the LFO), Pitch Envelope attack/decay/release time, Filter Envelope ADR time, Amplitude ADR time, PMT (crossfade type when fading between two partials), FXM (depth of frequency modulation produced by FXM - FXM applies a modulating waveform to the current waveform - to sort of "FM-ize" sounds. FMX color 1-4 makes sounds more "metallic" to more "grainy" ) ... Montage doesn't have this but FM-X may be able to come close, MFX control 1-4 (effects modulation), PW (pulse width = duty cycle for waveforms), PWM (pulse width modulation depth) ... Montage does not have provisions for applying PWM to arbitrary waves or ability to modulate these, FAT (low frequency boost amount for virtual analog), X-MOD or X-MOD2 (Crossmod depth when using carrier/modulator partials), LFO 1 or 2 step position - so can offset the current LFO step position, supersaw detune, pitch/filter/amplitude depth.

Since LFO can be a source and a destination - it appears there's some ability to make "recursive" functions - maybe useful for generative music/synthesis.

Finally, you can control the sensitivity of the 4 matrix controls (sources). There are negative values - so you can change the polarity.

Montage allows for translating a source through a curve to a destination. Fantom does not have a curve you can translate source controllers from incoming values to outgoing values applied to destinations. LFOs, for the matrix control, are similar to the "pulses" which define the movement of a lane in Montage. But in Fantom, these LFO modulations (Lane-like) do not have any curve they can pass through. Nor do other Fantom controllers as sources (pitch wheel, aftertouch, etc) have an ability to pass through a curve like Montage's system. Fantom's modulation is more direct - which means that some controllers are better than others for certain modulation results.

I know this is somewhat subjective, but I've watched quite a number of videos of the new Fantom, and have not heard any V-piano that sounds nearly as awesome as the CFX on the Montage8. This was my number 1 consideration when deciding to buy the Montage over the Kronos several months back, as well as over the MODX8 (i could have saved a lot of money and had a synth 1/3 the weight, but the MODX8 was a fail on pianos & the User memory to maximize how many piano libraries could be loaded at once). If I had to do it all over and decide against the Fantom with it's V-piano, I would still pick the Montage8.

Having said that, I do love Roland and would certainly want the Fantom if I could afford a second synth!

The other things that may come into play for consideration and potentially change things when comparing the Montage & Fantom, is the "Yamaha Synth streams 45th anniversary event" Sept 22. If they announce some of the things I've suspected they will in the next OS update, that could be a game changer and level the playing field, or possibly give the Montage the edge..!?

It will be interesting how this discussion changes (or not) in a week's time! 😉

When modulating pitch, Fantom provides details how to achieve specific note values.

1. Want. I remember your unsuccessful trials with this. Yamaha should have gone the extra mile with the scaling values. Too late now, no doubt.

2. Fantom's PWM on samples is notoriously bad unless you're into aliasing. I wouldn't call that a point for the Fantom, given the very narrow sweet spot.

I like Scott's playing more - but this run in this first impression I thought I heard more dynamics in the interaction of the body of the piano and maybe string-to-string. Montage simulates this somewhat, but for this aspect of the sound - I prefer a modeled approach (various resonance).

https://youtu.be/0spqtaHkH5A?t=1383

Piano sounds are, as you say, highly subjective. Having options is great - so it's nice to have more libraries in Montage or other keyboards that each have their own approaches/character.

For me, I think Yamaha pianos have always played in a mix better. If I was doing solo work - some of the modeled nuance may be helpful/"better" - but this sort of thing tends to get lost in the settings I play in.

There's an apparent limitation to one of Fantom's upsides: the CV/Gate outputs. They are not exposed to the computer as part of the audio interface (as is the norm with computer CV output), so they cannot be used as CV outputs with software like VCV Rack.

Fantom Cv outputs vs montage no cv outputs

Fantom Cv outputs vs montage no cv outputs

I did call it an upside. 🙂

My clarification is that it's more like:
Fantom limited CV Outputs vs Montage no CV Outputs

This opens a clear avenue for Yamaha or another company to improve upon what Roland has started here. Maybe they might even add CV tools to Cubase in order to compete with Ableton and Bitwig.

I've just noticed that the analog filter has its own discrete L&R outputs on the back. From a computer, the audio interface only presents 6 outputs (3 stereo pairs) so this pair is apparently not independently accessible that way or at least not at the same time as the others. But at least for the onboard sounds, and maybe in combination with appropriately routed audio coming into the A/D inputs, it appears that the Fantom effectively has three pairs of assignable outputs vs the Montage's one.

I like Scott's playing more - but this run in this first impression I thought I heard more dynamics in the interaction of the body of the piano and maybe string-to-string. Montage simulates this somewhat, but for this aspect of the sound - I prefer a modeled approach (various resonance).
https://youtu.be/0spqtaHkH5A?t=1383

This one I did not see yet, so definitely the best I've heard so far of the V-piano! That one definitely brings it closer to the Montage, but I still give the CFX the win IMHO

The V-piano definitely has great resonance. What I plan to do with the Montage pianos is combine the enveloped based resonance from the Epic Grand piano with the effect based resonance of the CFX, cut the volume/amount of each type in half, thus mixing the two...

For me, I think Yamaha pianos have always played in a mix better. If I was doing solo work - some of the modeled nuance may be helpful/"better" - but this sort of thing tends to get lost in the settings I play in.

I hear this a lot on forums, and maybe there is a lot of truth in it due to the type of piano it is, and the quality of the samples & programming Yamaha have put into it; however I just love the sound itself of the CFX more than most other pianos...except for the Synthogy Ivory C7, which I am working on capturing via SampleRobot. Maybe it's my style of playing whereby I love the dynamic & sometimes hardest notes in the mid to lower end of the piano, or that I grew up on Journey, Chicago, Night Ranger and other piano heavy bands, but this is what I want to hear come out of the Montage, with the bell like overtones in the bass notes, etc. (the CFX is a very close 2nd IMHO):
https://soundcloud.com/synthogy/pursuit-i2

Disclaimer for the truth police ...

For me, I think Yamaha pianos have always played in a mix better

BTW: when I compared "Yamaha pianos" to other manufacturers who do modeling - I was comparing the flagship synth (Motif, Montage) vs other manufacturers' flagship synths that directly compete with Yamaha. Yamaha has done modeling in past CP series and perhaps other keyboards. "Yamaha pianos" I mentioned before -- better in the mix (without modeling) should have read "Yamaha flagship synthesizer/workstation pianos as in Motif and Montage and derivatives".

Also keep in mind that you grow into any piano sound you spend a lot of time with. I've never loved ____ pianos (fill in the blank with some major manufacturer that has a reputation for great pianos -- not important to call out any particular one) - but if I played that keyboard exclusively -- I'd probably grow into preferring at over other pianos as I acclimate. Or at least, this could be a component of bias.

Also keep in mind that you grow into any piano sound you spend a lot of time with. I've never loved ____ pianos (fill in the blank with some major manufacturer that has a reputation for great pianos -- not important to call out any particular one) - but if I played that keyboard exclusively -- I'd probably grow into preferring at over other pianos as I acclimate. Or at least, this could be a component of bias.

There's definitely some truth in there about growing into a piano you spend time with and get used to the sound/feel. At the same time, I think back to when I first got the NI Bechstein/Bose/etc. VST piano library. I grew into & thought the Bechstein was the best piano on the planet, and that the Synthogy Ivory C7 was good, but not quite as good (I had only heard demos of the C7 at that point and never actually played one). Then I finally gave in and got the Synthogy C7, and my 'growth' towards the Bechstein shrunk in a matter of seconds. I still love the Bechstein as it sounds/plays great and it has it's own unique sound (I am all about variety), but the Synthogy C7 needed no time for me to grow into it to be my all time favorite. The Montage CFX is the closest to it that I've heard & played since. The CFX is probably a better sampled and truer huge grand piano that gives the best experience of feeling like I'm playing an actual acoustic grand; however the bell-like harmonic tones on the Synthogy C7 in the lower notes are second to none for me.

I just finished experimenting/testing and capturing the Bechstein via SampleRobot last night (I didn't want to do the C7 until I mastered SampleRobot first, so I can capture it perfectly). Wow, I didn't realize how hard it is to capture a piano and keep it under 500MB. I started out with 9 velocity layers, which was good because it allowed me to pick the best ones more easily. I tried to do 8 velocity layers, but it was way to big. I finally got it down to 5 layers, but still too big. I took all the layers down to 2 steps instead of every note, but still too big. Took down the length of the lower notes from 30 to 20 seconds, but not quite there. I took the bottom 3 layers down to 3 steps, which brought it down to 450MB. Now I just have to load the library and program the piano using the CFX Stage as a shell to work with...

So now just thinking about capturing the Synthogy C7, I am considering using some CFX velocity layers for the softer "pp" & "mp" notes because it is the closest in sound/tone to the C7, and I can EQ those layers to match pretty closely, thereby allowing me to capture the top 2 or 3 layers of the C7 (instead 5 or more layers), which are the most important and unique sounding ones with the bell-like harmonics I mentioned...

I'm pretty sure that Roland will increase features on FANTOM with further upgrades

But who knows if also Yamaha will do the same with the montage?

I think that potentially also montage can featurs new sound engine, the point is, will yamaha procede along this road or will shitch on a newer platform abandoning montage?

I'm pretty sure that Roland will increase features on FANTOM with further upgrades
But who knows if also Yamaha will do the same with the montage?
I think that potentially also montage can featurs new sound engine, the point is, will yamaha procede along this road or will shitch on a newer platform abandoning montage?

My crystal ball is currently broken :p , but I am fairly certain that Yamaha will be continuing with their road map of providing new features/enhancements via OS updates on the Montage, and not designing, engineering, programming, testing and releasing a new hardware Synth.

It makes more sense to me that they continue with developing & enhancing the Montage/MODX, as these Synths are connected in many ways. The Montage is Yamaha's flagship & the MODX is their economically priced version of the Montage, containing the same sounds/Performances, and is compatible with Montage libraries. I can't see Yamaha investing all this money & time in the Montage, and then just replace it, especially seeing how well the MODX is selling...

My gut tells me that this conversation will change drastically early next week after the Yamaha Synthesizers 45th Anniversary 24 Hour Live Stream Event..! 😉

Actually, they could do both- do an incremental update of the hardware of Montage (like doubling the amount of Flash Memory to 8GB physical, thus offering more space for user samples), this would be "Montage+", and at the same time provide OS update for both new and old Montage with new features like a VA engine and a fix of the Midi receive channel issue. I think that would be the best road.