Thanks for reading the site (sandsoftwaresound.net) 🙂

Yamaha regard their expertise in large scale integration as a strategically important asset. (Please see their annual financial reports.) The SWP70 is a major investment in the future. It's a generational step and a design with a long expected life time. A long life is needed in order to recoup Yamaha's investment. Thus, we haven't seen all of its potential capabilities as yet.

At some point, the current hardware platforms (Montage and MODX) will limit the features which can be delivered solely through software. That will necessitate a new hardware model in each product line. Speculatively speaking, I'm not sure if the SWP70 is capable of CS-like VA synthesis. The Reface CS (and DX) employ a Yamaha SSP2 (SH-2 CPU core) for synthesis. The mere presence of an SSP2 in the Montage is not significant for VA because it clearly supports UR-like digital audio in the existing design.

Of course, business decisions will take precedence eventually. We all love the free updates and improvements in our instruments. (I certainly do!) Like cellphones, tablets and other high-end electronics which enjoy periodic updates, we will need to buy a new upgraded platform in order to fuel the future. Nobody rides for free forever.

In the meantime, I'm pleased that Yamaha have adopted a platform strategy. And I keep playing, which is the real bottom line! 🙂

All the best -- pj

Of course, business decisions will take precedence eventually. We all love the free updates and improvements in our instruments. (I certainly do!) Like cellphones, tablets and other high-end electronics which enjoy periodic updates, we will need to buy a new upgraded platform in order to fuel the future. Nobody rides for free forever.
In the meantime, I'm pleased that Yamaha have adopted a platform strategy. And I keep playing, which is the real bottom line! 🙂

I agree that the "free" ride won't last forever; however at the same time I don't think it's completely a free ride. Hopefully this is all part of Yamaha's business strategy, but I'm presuming these new updates on both Montage/MODX + the White Montage model, are fueling sales...most definitely on the MODX line, but also a bit on the Montage line as well.
If so, these OS updates are likely paying off, as they are far less expensive to engineer/develop than a full new hardware/software synth. As long as they can continue providing OS updates to both Montage/MODX that fuel sales, are within the hardware specs & add some customer loyalty/faith, they will likely continue with the current hardware.

Then down the road "many years from now ;)", when Yamaha do release a new flagship synth line, customers will hopefully have a greater sense of loyalty & faith in the longevity in Yamaha Synths, thereby feeling more confident investing in something that will last longer with continual features/enhancements for many years to come...

I think/hope there's several years left to go with my Montage as the flagship, but regardless; I will continue enjoying it, not expecting anything more (except to fix the pitch bend midi issue that they're working on), and any new enhancement/feature is just gravy!! It will last me a long time...and it does everything I need it to & more right now anyway, so it's all good!

Maybe I should clarify: I'm not looking for anything for free. On the contrary, I think it would be ideal if Yamaha started charging for software updates in order to fuel additional investment in larger-scope software development as well as continued software support beyond hardware refresh dates. I think that a software update adding something like a VA synth engine, for example, would be worth a few hundred dollars. "Take my money!"

To elaborate on the point, I think it may be the case that Yamaha's business structure, in regards to their flagship synthesizers, may not be ideal for actually making the best synthesizers at the price point which they are targeting. I think that a combination of their size, accumulated R&D (time advantage), and associated industry climate (see: alleged anti-competitive agreements and price-fixing) have opened a path for Yamaha to (seemingly) maximize their profits and remain best-in-the-business while simultaneously compromising on offering the best synthesizer that they actually can at the current MSRP. It's also possible that they don't realize it or don't believe it, given the sorts of things I'm talking about involve significantly reconfiguring a portion of a 132-year-old company toward a software-focused model that is less than 50 years old. Business culture plays a factor here, and business size and age likely brings costly overhead in actually executing a transition. Slow and perhaps overly-careful adjustment may be all that is actually possible.

Maybe it's possible that the current DSP muscle of the Montage can't handle VA on top of FM-X and AWM2. If it can be handled, maybe it would involve compromising on polyphony for all 3 engines, and maybe they think it would be an uncomfortable sell to offer an update which could reduce polyphony in certain situations. I find it less likely that it wouldn't be able to do it in a situation where FM-X or AWM2 could be "turned off", for example offering multiple versions of the firmware which each offer 1 or 2 out of a possible 3 engines. This runs up against a question about how much complexity in this area that Yamaha is comfortable with presenting to customers. It would probably wind up meaning an increased workload for Bad Mister here on this forum.

But setting aside the big idea of a new synth engine, there's very much else that Yamaha could be doing when it comes to software updates for past-generation hardware. There are simple things like updating the file sharing server on the Motif XS/XF so that it doesn't require SMB1.0/CIFS. More significantly, the Motif XF received a software update bringing new effects that were never brought to the Motif XS despite the fact that they are powered by the same pair of SWP51 processors. In later years, we can find the Montage's new pianos which could have been released (as sample packs, costing money) on both the XS and XF. Even if hardware releases are primarily driven by necessity, Yamaha makes choices in the software department to drop support and thereby add as many exclusive bullet points as possible to the newest hardware's feature list.

This can be understandable in multiple ways when thinking about it in terms of what is best for Yamaha's bottom line today, but it doesn't make the most sense for the customer's benefit. I'm not asking for Yamaha to work against their own profits, though; I think that they could be served in greater profit and larger market share by restructuring to better align their bottom line with maximizing customer satisfaction. If that is actually not at all possible when the numbers are run in their finance department, I have to wonder what it might be like in an imaginary-reality where Yamaha's synthesizer department would be forcibly broken up into separate software and hardware companies. Would that be better for all of us regular folks in the pursuit of the best products?

@Paul

Speculatively speaking, I'm not sure if the SWP70 is capable of CS-like VA synthesis.

I've read your blog for years - you have a pretty good insight on design and synth architecture. What's your basis for this comment?

The only tangible difference between FM-X and a VA is the mathematical modelling of oscillators. So instead of an FM lookup-table which is used to calculate waveform values, a VA uses equations to generate the oscillators. Otherwise both use the same EG's, VCA's, FM, filters and audio mixing/routing.

I truly believe some of Yamaha's DSP chips are very flexible - and often mercurial. Let's look at the classic Yamaha VA products: the AN1x, PLG150-AN and the AN200. These all use one or more Yamaha YSS236-F DSP chips for VA tone generation.

However, the FS1r and PLG150-DX FM synths use the YMP706-F as an FM tone generator BUT also 2x YSS236-F which have been repurposed as DSP effects. In other words, it isn't much of a stretch to use a general purpose DSP for VA duties (and vice-versa).

Back to the Montage: The SWP70 is already being used as a jack-of-all trades tone generator and DSP effect. Take a look at all of the different effects, many of which have oscillators.

Who's to say that at least one VA engine couldn't occupy one of the Montage's 16 parts? Especially considering one of its SWP70's is likely underutilized (the MODX only has one SWP70 but certainly not half the tone generation & DSP of the Montage).

@Lex

Maybe it's possible that the current DSP muscle of the Montage can't handle VA on top of FM-X and AWM2. If it can be handled, maybe it would involve compromising on polyphony for all 3 engines, and maybe they think it would be an uncomfortable sell to offer an update which could reduce polyphony in certain situations.

I think the Montage can handle a VA engine. There would definitely be a compromise in polyphony for the 2nd SWP70, as I would presume that the FM-X engine would share it with the VA engine and have the exact same polyphony as FM-X alone has today. 128
Is there any reason the two engines couldn't share that same SWP70 and maintain 128 polyphony shared between the two?

@Michel

The only tangible difference between FM-X and a VA is the mathematical modelling of oscillators. So instead of an FM lookup-table which is used to calculate waveform values, a VA uses equations to generate the oscillators. Otherwise both use the same EG's, VCA's, FM, filters and audio mixing/routing.

I agree and think it's likely possible for those two engines to share the same SWP70 with shared polyphony.

Another thing to consider with this is how the MODX polyphony would change. Can they program the OS to have FM-X & VA share 64 between the two, or do they need to have hard numbers set like 32 each? Maybe it's possible to have a polyphony setting to adjust the balance between the two, or maybe they can have the OS automatically balance it..!?
I think one of Yamaha's top engineers/programmers should weigh in on this and give us the real story on how this could or could not be done, without revealing 'when'... (I mean) whether or not they plan to add a new VA engine in a future OS update! :p

@Darryl

There would definitely be a compromise in polyphony for the 2nd SWP70, as I would presume that the FM-X engine would share it with the VA engine and have the exact same polyphony as FM-X alone has today.

Why would any VA have to share the same SWP70 that the FM-X uses? For example, the MODX has both the FM-X and AWM on one SWP70. Why not AWM + VA on one SWP70?

I also don't get why any AWM/FM-X poly compromise follows. I think there are alternatively valid scenarios.

(Keep in mind, I wouldn't be surprised if a VA engine was limited to 8 notes poly per part - or if the overall VA poly was limited to 16 notes. Look at how the EX5 had only 2 notes AN poly.)

Here is the current situation:

MODX: 1x SWP70 with 128 note AWM and 64 note FM-X + 12 insert fx
Montage: 2x SWP70 with with 128 note AWM and 128 note FM-X + 16 insert fx

It's probably safe to assume for reasons of cost-saving that the Montage couldn't have been released with only 1x SWP70. Well unless management made a mistake ...or the software dev team was never able use the full potential of these chips ...or the full potential wasn't allowed to be used due to not wanting to compete with some future product.

So either 1) some of the FM-X polyphony is being split between Montage's two SWP70's (like the SWP70 with the shared AWM+FM-X on the MODX), or 2) the FM-X completely in the 2nd SWP70 that isn't connected to the flash ram.

Speculative conclusion:
- if the Montage's AWM is all by itself on SWP70 #1, a VA could conceivably be added since one single SWP70 is enough for MODX's AWM+FM-X
- if the Montage's FM-X is split between both SWP70's, a VA could conceivably be added to SWP70 #2 alongside the 2nd part of the FM-X.
- no AWM or FM-X polyphony would have to sacrificed for a VA

Paul
Thanks for reading the site (sandsoftwaresound.net)

Congratulations for your blog: I read it often ... and I often visit your sponsors 😀
Considering the fact that the SWP70 chip is the heart of FM, AWM2 synthesis and effects, it is definitely a programmable DSP or more generally in SOC with a DSP inside. At that point there are no technological reasons that prevent the SWP70 chip from synthesizing VA oscillators or Physical Modeling or Organ like. My doubts are about the computational capacity of this chip: in all cases I believe that nobody would complain if we had a VA with 16-24 voices of polyphony, much lower than the 128 FMX. A detail on which no one has focused is the fact that the FMX synthesis is full of aliasing: just try for example an operator with non-sinusoidal wave (Spectral Form = ALL and Skirt with high values) when it plays in the higher octaves. Is this the sign of the computational limits of the SWP70?

@Michel

Why would any VA have to share the same SWP70 that the FM-X uses? For example, the MODX has both the FM-X and AWM on one SWP70. Why not AWM + VA on one SWP70?
I also don't get why any AWM/FM-X poly compromise follows. I think there are alternatively valid scenarios.

I presumed that since the FM-X engine is likely used less in most situations, then they would have the VA utilize the 2nd SWP70 along with the FM-X, as I also presumed that AMW will likely be used more than the VA will in most situations. I easily hit the polyphony limit of the AWM SWP70 using just 2 PARTs, so AWM2 appears to be much more processing intensive(or atleast more widely used), therefore I presume they are not likely going to potentially affect the polyphony on the AWM2 engine by sharing it with either the FM-X or a VA engine.

- if the Montage's FM-X is split between both SWP70's, a VA could conceivably be added to SWP70 #2 alongside the 2nd part of the FM-X.

That is another option that they could consider doing, but I doubt they will touch the 1st SWP70 and potentially affect the polyphony of AWM2.

- no AWM or FM-X polyphony would have to sacrificed for a VA

Polyphony could be shared, but as I mentioned above, I don't think they will have any other engine share it on the 1st AWM2 SWP70. If they did, then polyphony would definitely be sacrificed on AWM2.
I think they are going to look at how much FM-X is utilized compared to AWM2, and if the available libraries & 'Preset' Performances are any indication, the AWM2 is used much more widely. They are also likely going to look at how much they anticipate the new VA engine being used in comparison to the AWM2. My guess is that it will be close to the same as with FM-X, and that AWM2 will be used much more generally compared to a VA engine. So I still think that they would have the FM-X & VA engines share the 2nd SWP70.

Personally, I don't know how much I would use the VA engine. Maybe if they implemented a new one that was not based off a previous analog synth and it had inventive ground breaking out of the box design & sound capabilities, then I would be more intrigued to utilize it & create new sounds...but if it's based of a past analog synth, I would likely use it less than the FM-X engine since I am a DX7II guy 😉

A detail on which no one has focused is the fact that the FMX synthesis is full of aliasing: just try for example an operator with non-sinusoidal wave (Spectral Form = ALL and Skirt with high values) when it plays in the higher octaves. Is this the sign of the computational limits of the SWP70?

This is simply because the Montage probably uses a 4096-bit lookup table for the sine wave values just like the FS1r.

Lower table resolution leads to added high harmonics (often aliased), noise and rough sounding envelopes (zipper noise). The additional waveforms that are present in some models are generated by reading out the same quarter log sine table in different ways.

FM7/8 (as well as other recent hardware and software implementations) likely use smooth interpolation to generate the sines, which eliminates the effects of the low resolution tables.

Read more here:
https://www.gearslutz.com/board/showpost.php?p=10602838&postcount=7

That is another option that they could consider doing, but I doubt they will touch the 1st SWP70 and potentially affect the polyphony of AWM2.

This doesn't follow and has been discussed several times. Despite your insistence, AWM polyphony is 128 notes, all day long and under any circumstance. That's how these AWM2 processors have always been built.

Do the math: any single part or combination of parts that each use 8 elements with long sustain can only sustain 16 notes before cutting polyphony.

Hi --

re: Basis for my comment. That's a fair question. I've never really laid out my guess at the way the SWP70 is organized internally.

Before saying anything, I have to emphasize "Speculatively speaking." With as much invested in AWM2/FM-X and their implementation in silicon, Yamaha have not published about the internal design. This whole discussion -- including my own comments -- would be on much sounder footing (no pun intended) if the micro-architecture were published. Yamaha are tight-lipped so "Hah!" to us all. 😀

BTW, we're lucky that we can speculate at all since Korg, Nord, etc. have largely buttoned up their service manuals.

I suspect that we have different architectural models in mind as to the SWP70 internals. One model is the "standard DSP" model -- a pipelined single instruction, single data (SISD) CPU. Natch, there may be enhancements for vector processing instructions and so forth.

An example of such a generic model is the Yamaha SSP2, which consists of an SH-2 DSP core and several effect DSP processors. The SSP2 is the heart of Reface CS with an internal clock of 135.4752MHz (a multiple of 44,100Hz, BTW). Another example would be the DSP56362 in early Nord/Korg modeling keyboards. The Reface CS manages 8 voices of polyphony (using the word "voice" loosely) with the effects handled by the SSP2 effect DSP processors. (The effect DSP processors are mini, small core, reprogrammable processors.)

The architectural model which I think is used in the SWP70 is a SIMD architecture more akin to a GPU. The Montage/MODX DSP RAM and wave work RAM memory clock is 95.9616.MHz, also a multiple of 44,100Hz. The SWP70 pumps out a finished sample every 2,176 memory clock ticks. The internal clock is probably a small multiple (maybe two) of the memory clock. Everything needs to run in a modest power envelope without a heat sink, etc., so it's not possible to run at GHz rates.

I image a block of tone generation (TG) cores dedicated to AWM2/FM-X. Part of that "dedication" is a pipeline specifically tailored and tuned to AWM2/FM-X. (I believe this design IP (the basic core design) is re-used in other AWM2 products.) Yamaha are in the AWM2/FM-X business so it makes sense to design hardware specific to these tasks. It's no simple feat to produce 128 channels of tone generation with low latency and no burps and hiccups.

I don't know how much flexibility is built into the so-called "oscillator" part of a TG core pipeline. Could Yamaha write a new SIMD program for VA using the existing TG core design? I don't know and hence, my doubt.

That said, since Yamaha haven't published a darned thing and my job easier (Hah!), I could be totally wrong. Yamaha are smart engineers, especially at the hardware level.

The choices made for Reface may or may not be revealing. Reface YC/CP use the SWX08 for AWM2/SCM synthesis. The SWX08 -- in my imagination -- use a similar AWM2 TG core assist. Reface DX/CS use SSP2 and its SH-2 core. Was something missing in the SWX08 TG core which was available later in the advanced SWP70 cores? Did SWP70 become VA capable as well? I guess we all have to stay tuned!

Interesting discussion although Yamaha will have the final say. 🙂

All the best -- pj

Very interesting. I hadn't considered it a possibility that the processors could be quite so specialized for one or two synthesis methods over another. Given the significant differences between AWM2, FM-X, and the various effects which run on the SWP70, I'd have guessed that the design was largely general-purpose.

I like to think that some day in the future someone will get a few of these processors decapped in support of a project to create cycle-accurate emulations of "Yamaha synthesizers of old" for the purposes of historical preservation, as happened for the Super Nintendo (a fascinating read with many colorful details like an individual under the pseudonym Dr. Decapitator, a $25k auction for every American-market Super Nintendo game, as well as Stephen Hawking).

This doesn't follow and has been discussed several times. Despite your insistence, AWM polyphony is 128 notes, all day long and under any circumstance. That's how these AWM2 processors have always been built.
Do the math: any single part or combination of parts that each use 8 elements with long sustain can only sustain 16 notes before cutting polyphony.

I get how polyphony works, but I guess was incorrectly thinking that the AWM 128 polyphony was more a factor of the limits of the SWP70 that is dedicated to AWM on the Montage & if the processor were maxed out with AWM hitting the 128 mark, thereby at the limits of the processor, then sharing it with another engine could affect polyphony; However re-thinking this through a bit more, I'm thinking there is room to spare on the SWP70 and the limits are a factor of how they programmed/capped the AWM engine, not the limits of the processor ... so the processor most likely could have an AWM & another engine sharing it. Looking at the MODX whereby the 2 engines are already sharing processing, there must be a fair bit of room to spare on these processors.

So would they spread the processing of the VA or FM-X engine across the two SWP70's or have the FM-X & VA share the second processor is the question..!? If the VA processing is similar to AWM or FM-X for the same amount of Polyphony, maybe they would have no choice but to have either the FM-X or VA engine spread across both SWP70's, because it appears that each SWP70 is close to 2/3's capacity with the AMW or the FM-X engines set at 128 each, so that would mean there is likely enough spare processor resourcing available between the two SWP70's (1/3 each for a total of 2/3's combined) for a third engine set at 128 polyphony.

It would be interesting as to what they would do on the MODX, which appears to be close to maxed of with AWM at 128 & FM-X at 64 ... so would they change FM-X to be 32 and give the VA engine 32, or would they reduce the AWM polyphony to 96 & have both the FM-X & VA set at 50 each!?
Maybe they would have a config setting that allows each Performance to have it's Polyphony set differently, like have a dropdown with Polyphony options for all 3 engines..!? Or maybe it would have to be a Global setting & not per Performance, as I could see issues when switching between Performances if it was set differently for each Performance!?

Hi Lex --

The closest I've ever gotten to understanding Yamaha's approach to AWM2 is by studying the datasheet and MIDI spec for the YMW820 (NSX-1). Admittedly, the YMW820 is a low-end device implementing a large subset of the XG voice architecture with only chorus, reverb and a single variation effect.

The YMW820 has a control CPU (dual issue, 32-bit RISC), mixer hardware, DSP for effects, and a "wavetable synthesis core" (Yamaha's exact terminology). Both the synthesis core and DSP are controlled by the CPU.

The wavetable synthesis core supports 64 channels (polyphony). The YMW820 has a 2MByte wavetable ROM which presumably contains the General MIDI waveforms. It also has a 3 MByte wave RAM which can be loaded with eVocaloid waveforms or Real Acoustic Sound (Articulated Element Modeling).

The 64 channel synthesis core is drawn as a distinct hardware subsystem from the effects DSP. Each channel is what we consider an element: pitch generator, oscillator, digitally controlled filter (DCF), envelope generator (EG), LFO. I suspect that other AWM2-based products have similar wavetable synthesis cores, including the SWP70.

Of course, the SWP70 synthesis core is the ultimate in the entire AWM2 family. It also has many effect DSPs for system and insertion effects.

Bottom line, Yamaha exploit massive parallelism for AWM2 synthesis where each channel is a wavetable synthesis element. A true DSP processor like the SSP2 is better suited for VA synthesis which is why the SSP2 is deployed in the Reface CS, not an AWM2-oriented SWX processor. (The SWX has an embedded wavetable synthesis core, too.) I believe that Yamaha will need to add another SSP2 (or some such) to the Montage in order to implement VA. There's a reason why it's called a "Standard Wave Processor" -- it is hardware specifically designed for AMW2, FM-X, AEM, and SCM synthesis. It isn't a general purpose programmable DSP. Maybe VA can be warped to the existing pipeline(s), maybe not.

BTW, the new VCM MINI FILTER and MINI BOOSTER are DSP effects. The effect DSPs are programmable -- the AWM2 channel filters likely are not.

Hope this helps understanding a bit -- pj