No.

Balanced Hammer action is the weighted action developed specifically for top-of-the-line Yamaha synthesizers. Rather than the weight being "graded" (heavier in the low end - gets less resistance as you as you ascend the scale), there is one "balanced" weight across all Keys. Significantly, the BH action features Aftertouch.

GH actions were developed specifically for Yamaha electronic pianos, designed to mimic the feel of a piano as you ascend the keys. We do not have a Graded action with Aftertouch.

A Little Background
The MO series (MOX) was the first synth we made with a GH action. And the fact that it was well received was something Yamaha watched closely.
Since one of the differences between the top-of-the-line Motif-series at the time, and the MO-series, was Aftertouch (MO series do not feature it). Plus GH action have the added benefit of being lighter (overall) than the BH action. So the MOX became the perfect test case for a synth with a Graded Hammer action.

The R&D at Yamaha on keyboard action is an on going thing. We are amongst the very very few companies that build their own keyboard actions. And I've experienced the lengths they go through to develop these actions (I know I work for the company) and I have seen up close, exactly why they get it right. It's the attention to details and the worldwide studies they do. It is fascinating. There is the overall feel but then the individual instrument can be adjusted (edited) to respond to wide variety of player's touch.

Whether an 88 key Graded Hammer action with Aftertouch is even possible (up to Yamaha standards) is a question that is something that remains to be seen. We don't make one, and it's not because we are unaware, it's a matter of "feel", response, overall playability. Aftertouch is not necessary on a piano sound, but is important on a flagship synth.

When a product is only or principally only used for piano soundset, the GH and triple sensor actions make the most sense. When a product is doing piano as just one of hundreds of instruments it is asked to emulate, the inclusion of Aftertouch meets more requests versus the very piano-centric actions.

All of this doesn't mean everyone will prefer the Yamaha action - (most don't know about the capability of adjusting the response curves) - but you can rest assured that when it comes to developing and improving keyboard actions, Yamaha is doing their homework... I usually sum it up this way: we don't want every customer, we only want those who can hear and feel the difference!

Thanks for the question.

Thank for your kind answer.

I understand why top-synth doesn't need triple sensor but aftertouch is important..

But I felt a little disappoint only 2 points of montage8

1. No string resonance -- I heard this is a simple software tech. to apply synth.

2. No Key off velocity support -- maybe Montage8 will be more various expression especially at brass

I'm very very satfied with montage8 . But i wish this points will upgrade next version of montage..

This is just one isolated opinion ...

Should the MOX8 had a balanced hammer keybed (without aftertouch) - my past purchasing habits would have been different. There was a time I really wanted a MOX8 but could not even put in my virtual shopping cart - much less take it up to the cashier - because I could never get my hands/mind to "love" or even "like" the action. I did "settle" on a MOX6 but as that was a compromise as well, I ended up ditching the MOX6 as it was too redundant vs. a 61-key I was gigging with.

The GH of the MOX8 wash just too much mush in the middle for my taste. Very glad Montage went with the balanced keybed like the S90XS (that's my reference since I have it ... but also like the Motif XF8, etc).

If the Montage8 was lighter, I'd be gigging with it vs. the 7. Wouldn't have minded a "light" version that maybe used more plastic to shed some pounds but retained the balanced keybed.

As far as triple sensor - for at least the repeating-note feature of triple sensor - this can be "matched" by a dual sensor if the sensors (of a 2 sensor system) are placed closer together in terms of key-angle to fire the sensor. The main thing lost of 2 vs 3 would be differences that you can have between "ultra legato" playing and playing where the keys return to their resting point. If you have a passage and never change positions and leave the keys partially pressed for all notes - then the keyboard could decide to sound differently if you never bring the keys up to full resting vs. leaving them partially pressed. On a real piano, this would leave the damper felts off the strings - so with triple you could simulate this and have a more localized "sustain" (without pressing the sustain pedal). And for synth or non-piano sounds, you could treat this as a parameter and possibly do something different to an "ultra legato" gesture (not bringing keys all the way up).

Poly-aftertouch would be a way to present triple sensor with aftertouch. It's fairly expensive, however and may require per-keyboard calibration (add to expense).

Note - that dual sensor could also "fake" this localized sustain feature of triple sensor by looking at the release velocity and assume that a "slow" velocity means you're not going to lift all the way up on a key and leave the virtual damper off the string.

I didn't see string resonance covered in the previous answer.

Montage's sound engines, except for FM-X (which is computationally based), does not have any modelling features. String resonance requires some modeling (virtual instrument type behavior) and Montage's realistic pianos and EPs are based off of sample playback without modeling. String resonance (sympathetic) is not something offered by Montage due to the approach of the tone generator ("ROMpler").

Most of that is, as you say, an isolated opinion, but some of it is just inaccurate. But thanks for sharing, Jason.

Montage certainly does contain modeling features. It does not, however, feature the Virtual Resonance Modeling (VRM) found in the Yamaha piano-focused products, like the Clavinova CLPs and the groundbreaking AvantGrand instruments, but uses the broader focused (for synthesizers) Virtual Circuitry Modeling... VCM models (yes, actual number crunching modeling) a wide variety of vintage and other effects; some non-piano centric (Phasers, Chorus, Reverbs, Compressors, Equalizers, etc.). and while VCM is used in other Yamaha products, as well, the selection of Types provided in the Montage are specifically selected for the music synthesizer.

Sympathetic string vibration (extremely piano-centric) can certainly be accomplished on sample playback engines... not sure what you mean by the reason that it is not offered on Montage... sorry, I don't think that's the reason at all. While Modeling can often give the most awesome results, it is certainly not the only way to accomplish String Resonance. For a synthesizer (designed to cover a wide variety of sounds) VRM would be overkill and drive the cost of Montage way up, just to satisfy one of the many categories the product is meant to cover. CLPs and AvantGrand are principally piano (to the nth degree).

The best String Resonance simulation I've heard is in the new CLPs... (opinion)

Yamaha VRM is already in its second generation (enhanced VRM) and for those unfamiliar, visit a full line Yamaha store and play one of those new CLPs (it'll keep you in touch with the bleeding edge of the technology)

VRM physical modeling—the distinctive reverberation generated by the entire body of a concert grand piano
In a grand piano, sound resonates throughout the body of the instrument, producing a rich reverberation that envelops the listener in sound. This phenomena is reproduced perfectly in the Clavinova through enhanced Virtual Resonance Modeling (VRM). The original VRM calculates the various states of the strings for each of the 88 notes on the keyboard, from one instant to the next, and timing and depth of damper pedals pressed. The enhanced VRM now also calculates aliquot resonance in the upper octaves, and the full resonance of the soundboard, rim, and frame. This technology allows for vivid, bright, richly-varied expression that reflects the limitless number of factors inherent in piano performance.

Jason //
thanks for your detailed inform about triple-sensor's advantage 'ultra legato'
I have one question,
as you mentioned, dual sensor could also "fake" this localized sustain feature of triple sensor by looking at the release velocity
but I know MONTAGE8 key can't count velocity when key release (is this 'note off velocity'?)
can MONTAGE8 know 'note off velocity'?

Bad Mister // thanks for your additional information about string resonance
I just think very simply,
String resonance can be accomplished in MONTAGE8..
by just adding one more part or eliment (AWM2, records real resounance by pressing every key)
and XA option add (condition.. some specific key pressed?)

maybe.. it'll be more more complex then I thought..
but it can be accomplished by software upgrade (not hardware change..)
or effect add (like damper resonance (already existed))

I know kurzweil forte update this just software upgrade...

of course I don't want much high quality like clavinova. but I still wish the least quality would be developed.

thanks.

HyunJung wrote:
can MONTAGE8 know 'note off velocity'?

No, the Montage doesn't have release velocity. There is hardly any keyboard in the Montage class in the present which supports release velocity. I had this function in my sampler Akai S2000 but I don't see a great advance of having this in a keyboard although it could probably be easily implemented because the sensors are already there (for the attack velocity).

BM,

Thumbs up on the discourse. Great to have a welcome tone, even in disagreement.

Most of that is, as you say, an isolated opinion, but some of it is just inaccurate.

I want to point out that my comments on modeling are limited to the tone engine / tone generator - I think I said "sound engine". Kind of loose with the terminology - but my focus was on the pre-effects sound generation of AWM2 which is all sample based and not modeled.

I've made the same distinction before in a previous message:

https://www.yamahasynth.com/forum/why-no-s-art2-voices-in-montage#reply-20257

To me, the basic building blocks are: completely non-modeled tone generator (AWM2) which feeds into an effects engine which itself has modeling capabilities (like the rotary speaker and other things). The effects engine is peanut-butter spread, meaning it effects the entire audio stream and not individual samples. In order to "do" sympathetic resonance in the most economic way, you'd have to use a modeled tone generator (not one of the Montage's "engines") which could leverage the same "number crunching" to produce the original sound as to produce the sympathetic sound.

You could still do sympathetic resonance with a purely sampled tone generator - but you'd (as one implementation) feed each key as a separate channel to the effects engine. That's too many pathways to be "economic" and is certainly not part of how Montage does things either. The other option is to have some "brains" to play back the harmonics as themselves samples - but to do so in a complex manner depending on which dampening felts were raised, what notes were struck - velocity dependent - etc. etc. lots of math and "modeling" with a sampled result. And lots of samples to cover the bases of harmonics for different strings. The engine to decide how to map this would be, to me, a modeling component.

So I stick to my guns in saying that the AWM2 tone generator doesn't do modeling. It's a ROMpler. Yes, with some modeling effects lobbed on (outside of what I think of the dotted line section of AWM2). And "too late" in the processing chain to do sympathetic resonance (an individual-for-every-key type effect rather than L/R channel effect).

==============

Regarding this velocity stuff:

I have no idea what the Montage can and cannot do. My previous discussion of sensor technology was based on what they are (on/off switches located at different angular moments of the key travel). Any two switch system can know how long it took between the two sensors in either direction. I say "can" meaning having two switches you could surround these switches with the proper software/firmware/FPGA code/etc. to look at both directions. However, it is entirely possible that the guts of any given keyboard (Montage included) only look at one direction for a note-on velocity only and "throw out" any opportunity for note-off velocity.

It's not the switch count that limits you, it's what you're willing to store in registers - it's what you're willing to use as triggers for timers. This stuff does take additional resources - and any given keyboard may optimize the feature out of existence because other things are more important or the marketing bullet doesn't "earn" you anything or TTM will get blown out with the additional work and testing or ... lots of reasons to scale back features.

Although I said double sensors could "fake" triple sensor features - I meant this in bold letters. It's like an actor can fake being a doctor. A doctor and an actor are not the same thing - but maybe the actor will pass under certain situations. Reason being is that there's a difference between slowly letting go and actually eventually reaching a full rest (not pressed) key position and letting go slowly and staying in the middle - never really reaching fully at rest. If you may a policy that assumes a slow enough note-off velocity means the same as never fully letting go of the key - you'd be wrong possibly 100% of the time - or maybe 0%. It's "fake". But it could be done - and if it was configurable - probably be satisfying for the performances you want that feature for.

Note that this damper resonance is not the same thing. It's not a per-string-something-excites-some-other-strings kind of effect. It's still in the realm of "normal" sample playback. It has "resonance" in the phrase - but don't confuse the two because they share a word.

... and as far as samplers accomplishing string resonance. You could of course sample playback the resonance - but I would consider the engine that would "mix in" the correct samples to play depending on what keys are pressed, which are not, and if your dampening felts are lifted or not - would be in the realm of a modeling engine - and I'm pretty sure Montage doesn't have this facility. Although, as I mentioned before, I'm not sure what's under the hood completely. Such a thing would not be a pure ROMpler, but a hybrid. In terms of the AWM2 engine, I'm not sure Montage expresses itself as such a hybrid.

Pure ROMpler to me is not a dig. Even with modeled instruments - many musicians go back to/prefer the sampled instruments or for those with multiple engines including modeling may favor the sampled sounds over the modeled ones. I'm perfectly content with sampled and only see modeled as expanding the options not necessarily a sure-fire way to make the quality of the sound go up by leaps and bounds. At least not from what I hear across the board today. Technology may change the landscape soon.

Also, since I don't play concert piano - it's difficult for me to get anything out of sympathetic resonance (SR) even if it existed. The rest of the band isn't so sympathetic to any resonance I may exhibit - so those harmonics get drowned in the fundamentals of other loud electronic instruments. This kind of stuff (SR) is great for the studio while I'm playing piano for my own amusement - but the purchasing decision, for me, is based off of the instrument in the context of other instruments with an audience out there.

I have the Montage 8 and find it not triggering every note when playing fast 1 note trills using both my left and right hand index fingers where my S90ES could do a better job at this.

Since this is a big part of my contemporary playing style I was considering trying out the CP4 triple sensor action to see if it was better playing real fast single note trills.

Has anyone tried this between the 2 keyboards? If so, how are they side by side?

Thanks!

Night and day. Totally different, totally a personal taste thing. You must play and decide for yourself... like trying on shoes, no one but *you* can tell if they fit. MONTAGE 8 and S90 ES have identical actions, so perhaps your issue with MONTAGE was something different.

Bad Mister wrote:

Night and day. Totally different, totally a personal taste thing. You must play and decide for yourself... like trying on shoes, no one but *you* can tell if they fit. MONTAGE 8 and S90 ES have identical actions, so perhaps your issue with MONTAGE was something different.

True! I know I need to try the CP4 and see.

As far as the S90ES having identical actions, everyone who tried my S90ES side by side the Montage 8 could tell a difference and how the ES played a bit lighter. Maybe it was broken in? Who knows. I ordered an S90SX and played it side by side with my ES and the ES was a lot better to play so maybe it was this particular ES.

Interesting discussion...

Hi Bad Mister, would you help on the below questions

1. Are all of the features mentioned aboved (e.g VRM, triple sensors) on Clavinova CLP avaible on CP stage piano ? What are the differences regarding the key / action /sensor / effect etc. between the 2 pianos ? I love the CLP and i plan to buy a CP stage piano, should I by buy a CP4 now or wait the next generation with better features ?

2. Quesion about the speakers of Clavinova CLP. I own a Clavinova CLP 465GP. The sound is super beautiful. However, when I connect the AUX OUT to my Monitor speakers HS80M and mute the speakers on the piano, I acknowledge the sounds are difference, would you advise what speaker of the CLP 465GP is ?

Thanks,

Cronus wrote:

Interesting discussion...

Hi Bad Mister, would you help on the below questions

1. Are all of the features mentioned aboved (e.g VRM, triple sensors) on Clavinova CLP avaible on CP stage piano ? What are the differences regarding the key / action /sensor / effect etc. between the 2 pianos ? I love the CLP and i plan to buy a CP stage piano, should I by buy a CP4 now or wait the next generation with better features ?

The major difference are not only in the specificication but they have two entirely different customers. The CLP, as you know, is furniture. It is designed for the living room of a well styled home. The CP4 Stage is designed to go to the gig. The CP4 Stage is a Master MIDI Keyboard Controller with both MW and PB Wheel and the ability to be a four Zone MIDI control keyboard.

There is no real overlap in the products.. Two completely different customers

2. Quesion about the speakers of Clavinova CLP. I own a Clavinova CLP 465GP. The sound is super beautiful. However, when I connect the AUX OUT to my Monitor speakers HS80M and mute the speakers on the piano, I acknowledge the sounds are difference, would you advise what speaker of the CLP 465GP is ?

Thanks,

The speakers in the CLP are designed and positioned to be optimized in a home, where the instrument is typically placed against a wall - this helps the sound fill the room and engulf the player at the playing position. The CP4 Stage has no speakers because it is designed for the gigging musician.

I know this sounds like maybe it is a standard line, but it is very true... the keyboards all sound fantastic, they have entirely different applications... any good salesperson talking with a customer would find out how you are going to be using the instrument... they would never answer the question about which one is better! Better for what? What's your application... these two products are not even shown in the same department in a music store.

So, what is your application?

The CP4 Stage is Yamaha's top-of-the-line Stage Piano, featuring Spectral Component Modeling plus AWM2 sample-based technologies. And it is fluent in the world of MIDI control