Hi Earle,

I do believe I answered it as best I can.

Reprinted below..............

Hi Earle, welcome to YamahaSynth.
And while your theories about AWM2 are interesting, they have no basis in fact. Perhaps this will help... The CP4 Stage combines two technologies SCM (Spectral Component Modeling) which is Physical Modeling and AWM2 (Advanced Wave Memory 2) which is a proprietary method of sample-based data storage. The AWM2 sounds are derived directly from the Motif XF LIBRARY. If you like them "better" or think they "sound better", this might be just an opinion (which you are free to have) but when you say you "don't think Yamaha wants the world to know that the AW2(sic) sounds from the CP4 are significantly better than the AW2 sounds from the XF8" well that is (truly) pure opinion, as they are taken from the Motif XF8... And we say so openly!

The acoustic and electric pianos found on the CP4 Stage are recreated via SCM - a rather new Physical Modeling technology where velocity switching of pre-recorded samples is not used. The data representing the instrument modeled is assembled via pure number crunching, harmonic analysis and reassembly on demand. Suffice it to say, an entirely different sound creation process. But the other sounds in the CP4 Stage library are AWM2 sample based and taken directly from the Motif XF library.

.............................

I see in another thread you may want to scuba dive (again). Excellent ! And that at the end of the day is the difference between the CP4 Stage target customer, and the Synthesizer (Motif /Montage) target customer. And why SCM is found in a piano based product, and AWM2/FM-X are found in the Montage. SCM, while it has a few user adjustable parameters, Modeling can be quite hostile to those without a scientific background; the Technology in the Montage is very hands-on. Even more hands-on from an editing/customizing point of view than previously possible.

While the tech in the CP4 Stage is next level stuff, and plays extremely well, and records perfectly... On recordings it is indistinguishable from an acoustic - if you weren't told you wouldn't know. The fundamental Rhodes, Wurlis are completely nailed and it shares the appropriate VCM effects for these iconic electro-magnetic systems... Recreating the fundamental tones and the effects of their era!

Which has a better piano sound? - is always a personal taste thing. And frankly, my co-worker, Blake and I were laughing about this because -how cool is it to have to choose a favorite 🙂

Playing the pianos in the CP4 Stage, and then in the Montage (which by the way can include them all) at NAMM in one Live Set I had the "S700 for Montage", the "Full Concert Grand", the new "CFX Grand", and the promotional Bosendorfer "Imperial Grand" - each inspired a different mood, each was worthy of being a favorite. Each ultimately tweakable.

Typically, when playing a sample-based piano emulation, you are working in the wheelhouse of the technology. Samples are really good doing percussion instruments versus instruments that are blown or bowed. The difficulties of the piano, being a very complex percussion instrument are well known... In order to make the piano "speak" well, you have to sample at multiple velocities. It is easy to understand why... The behavior of a hard strike is different from the behavior of a soft strike at the string level.

Just as hitting a crash cymbal (another percussion instrument) is very chaotic when struck hard, and not so when struck softly. Just adjusting the volume of a hard struck cymbal does not "fool" you - you can tell it was struck hard even played back at a low volume. It sound like a hard strike played back at a low volume, not like a softly struck cymbal! Same goes for a piano string, the chaos or lack there of is obvious, to the ear/brain. With piano it's more subtle but you notice it... When its not right!

SCM avoids this entirely as the technology is not simple velocity swaps. This is something that you "feel" over time when playing the CP4 Stage, it is sweet. However, when velocity swapping technology is used the compromise is always in the number of velocity swaps and where they occur - *where* to concentrate your effort. For ballads you might want more behavioral difference at lower velocities, for rock you may not require subtleties like this, with AWM2 as available in the Montage allows scuba divers a huge advantage to "detail" their playable sounds like never before.

We don't have all the answer yet, but comparisons between CP4 Stage and Montage should NOT be done exclusively by which has "the best" piano... But with the other features and product focus clearly in mind. In other words, what else do you need it to do?

Hope that helps.

Thank you Bad Mister, as always. You answered my question directly and by reading between the lines.

Your statement, "While the tech in the CP4 Stage is next level stuff, and plays extremely well, and records perfectly... On recordings it is indistinguishable from an acoustic - if you weren't told you wouldn't know.", I agree with completely and would also add that playing the CP4 keyboard itself is almost exactly the same feel as the keyboard on my Yamaha C7. That is primarily why I bought the CP4, because I could go back and forth between the CP4 and C7 and play both exactly the same and what I improvised on one I could improvise on the other by playing with the exact same keyboard feel and almost same sound. Also, it's great for classical pieces. Try "Moonlight Sonata" on the CP4 with M=CFXStF1 (10) with L= Str:Orchestra3 (17) volume brought in and out via FC2. You're in a concert hall.

I recall when I was invited by the resident pianist to bring a small combo into the lounge of one of Los Angeles' most distinguished hotels on my birthday, and packed the place with my friends, which I might add was the first time I ever played in public. I was shocked how hard it was to press the keys on the lounge piano compared to my C7. Until then I thought all piano keyboards were the same. This threw off my playing, but I quickly recovered except for the base player and drummer who were distracted looking around the room and forgot they were to take solos which left me trying to improvise 5 rounds of "Foggy Night In London Town".

But I digress. From reading your response and my experience with the CP4, I realize I would miss the CP4 SCM sounds if I let the CP4 go. So I guess I need to put on the scuba gear over the tuxedo (always loved those movies).

And as aside, now that I have helped you sell another 100 CP4s, as a quid pro quo I would love to receive an email (I assume you have my email address on file) with the chords and voiceings Blake plays at the intro of his Montage 8 video on Sweetwater. So cool.

Thanks to both of you!

I have allways been of the opinion, that advanced technollogy and moddeling like EAM and SCM and some others have been enhancements to AWM(2). As there are still samples involved...

Are we sure this kind of technollogy is not in the AWM sound engine of the Montage? Because if they are not inthere, this implementation of AWM2 feels like a step back from the AWM soundsources in Tyros5, Clavinovve CLP709 and CP4..

Do we even know if the Enhanced articulations and legato detection of the Motif series made it into the Montage?

With all respect, I cannot be sure of what "we know", who is "we" in that question?. I know what I know 🙂

"...step back", none of the products you mention have anywheres near the programmability/edit ability of the Montage. Simply, none of them is a "synthesizer" - it's pretty clear when you purchase a Tyros 5, Clavinova CVP709 or a CP4 Stage you are buying it not to synthesize, and when you buy a MOXF, Motif XF, or Montage you clearly have synthesis (or you should) have synthesis on your mind.

It's neither a step forward or backward, it's an entirely different focus. Different target customer.

OK, I think I have said enough about this issue. But before I return to my day job, I have one final comment.

Here it is. Today I received a Yamaha UD-BT01, a wireless bluetooth MIDI interface which transfers MIDI back and forth between the CP4 and iPad wirelessly. I am pleased to report it works exactly as advertised!

I am posting this here instead of the CP4 thread because it is an answer to those like me that are not going to use a computer with a synth/stage piano but still want to easily record MID, record samples and use an iPad as a second sound source played live or on MIDI playback and with recorded Cubasis MIDI drum tracks actually playing the CP4 great drum notes as an alternative to a drum arpeggio.

Here is how using Cubasis. In Cubasis create a MIDI drum track live or paste in the available drums loops from Cubasis or Synthbook. Set that track to MIDI channel 3. Set the CP4 to a performance that has a drum set in the Split section and limit the Split note range to the last 3 notes on the keyboard so that the rest of the keyboard can be used for live playing the Main and Layer parts without triggering the Split/drum sounds. Play the Cubasis drum track and it will trigger the great sounding drum notes in the CP4 instead of just audio in from the iPad. Then use whatever other Cubasis tracks you wish for MIDI Channels 1 and 2 and other tracks for audio.

Also connect the headphone jack on the iPad into the Aux In port on the CP4 for audio from the iPad to play through the CP4. I found this audio connection to sound superb.

The UD-BT01 will also play sounds in Garageband and other apps as a second sound source.

The above can apply to the Montage as well, as applicable, although with the one USB MIDI/Audio cable that comes with the Montage the USB Bluetooth MIDI/Audio connection may not be necessary.

Hope this helps someone looking for a computer alternative.

Can the UD-BT01 be plugged into the usb-to-device port like a thumb drive and still work properly? Or do I need to connect it to the to-host port and run the included cable to supply power to it?

Can the UD-BT01 be plugged into the usb-to-device port like a thumb drive and still work properly?

No, the UD-BT01 plugs into the TO HOST port and must be run with the included cable to power it.
MIDI data does not travel to the TO DEVICE port - so connecting there would be meaningless. The TO DEVICE port is for data storage (reading/writing Files)
USB-MIDI travels to the TO HOST port.

The MD-BT01 connects to the five pin MIDI jacks (powers itself via the MIDI jack) and is bluetooth from there.

Ah I get it. I figured that was the case, but always best to ask

I certainly wrote more here in this reply but somehow it was edited out, smh.

If you just want a piano, CP4 SCM modeled piano engine is probably the cutting edge choice from Yamaha. It has a few extras but the point is a stage piano. If you want a full featured diverse top level synthesizer that can emulate APs, EPs strings, synths, brass, percussion, bass, guitar, ... gasp gasp ... plus add exhaustive combinations and permutations of use of these in an easily accessible live situation, then Montage will definitely be your choice. Montage APs (just guessing and no offense to anyone) standing all alone in a vacuum will likely be not as perfect as the CP4's SCM models, but is the difference meaningful?

it depends on what you're doing. For me, performing live in a loud band mix, I strongly doubt it. In fact I'm sure of it. If you're goal is recording the most perfect studio tracks of AP alone, you may want to use CP4 or other modeled AP engines out there in the world. The exhausting list of things Montage will soon bring more than outweighs a modest difference in APs that my audience generally can't even hear in the mix. but thats me, ymmv. As always, select the right tool for the job and be happy. Motif XF pianos were not as perfect as CP4, that was the primary reason to buy a CP4 for that market segment. Montage doesn't attempt to deliver CP4 modeled pianos - but I do expect to hear improved APs in Montage vs my XF.

at which point, given the many many ways I expect Montage will be easier and better at for my live uses ... I'll have a big decision to make. Cannot wait to lay my physical hands on one ...

David,

Thank you for your response. I agree with you, but just want to add this: I had an XF8 and sold it for a CP4 to simplify and devote my time to playing more. What I immediately discovered to my surprise, and contrary to what Bad Mister has said (although who am I to disagree with the chief), the AW2 sounds on the CP4 are more full of life and vibrant than the AW2 sounds on the XF8. Sequence into the CP4 a MIDI drum track on MIDI Channel 3/split part assigned to a house drum kit and you will be surprised with the difference. The CP4 drums have real acoustic punch and are right there next to you.

OK, I expect to be corrected again, but I sand by this analysis. Not starting a controversy, but the CP4 is really amazing. If I buy a Montage, and probably will, I will want to also keep the CP4.

Thanks again.

No argument here. Certainly, the CP4 STAGE tone engine jumps. The SCM (acoustic and electric) pianos, and the AWM2 samples are right 'up close' and present. The output engine on the CP4 is crisp, and the fact that the engine is but three Part multi-timbral means they feel much more robust and in your face. The output lens on the CP4 Stage is a generation newer than the XF. So what you hear is real, newer chips, along with the number of Parts that must share the bandwidth, and that'll do it.

You can program that same or similar result in the XF by editing each Voice you use to maximize it for the ensemble size (number of Parts) you plan to use. For example, in the XF many of the drum kits default to a Voice volume of 75-80, anticipating you are going to combine it with many other Parts. If you want the drums down front and 'up close' in the XF you must edit the Voice volume of the Kit.

Voice volume is the local volume control. It's best understood if we use an electric guitar Voice as an example. Voice volume is the guitar player's own volume control. While the XF's Part Volume is the volume control on the studio's mixing console. If the engineer is not getting enough signal at the board, they ask the musician to turn up at the source. That's what Voice Volume is, it's the volume at the source.

The source volume of the Kits in the CP4 STAGE are turned up, by default.
They are turned down in the Motif XF.

Thank you Bad Mister for the confirmation and explanation. My only comment is, for the record, I wish to correct "sand" to "stand" (...stand by this...). This wireless computer keyboard seems to miss a few strokes now and then. Will add it to the upgrade list along with the Montage.

BM, can you comment on the CP1 relative to the CP4? I own the CP1 and I tried the CP4 and returned it. Yamaha advertised that the CP4 was the best, most advanced (I know it does more stuff) but to me the CP1 just sounded better for what it does. Thanks

'Comment on' ? Hmm nothing to comment on really... nothing really to say but each player is likely to find their favorite piano sound and it matters not the size of the wave ROM or the even the technology used to recreate it. It's all very personal, subjective and musical. If you think it sounds better, accept no arguments from anyone. You're allowed to think it sounds better.

CP1 is the SCM technology in its purist form
The CP4 STAGE is an updated application of SCM
Montage is a different animal entirely.

It doesn't matter which one you find your favorite piano sound in, as long as you find it.