A good time to gain proficiency on your current Montage or MODX since the next generation will likely heavily leverage the current generation.

[quotePost id=121569]My guess is either June 1st or early September. June 1st could potentially sell a bunch prior to the summer festivals and outdoor gigs/weddings/concerts, and I think maybe a lot of reggae, blues, pop, rock music, etc. Although September might be better for studio recording, gospel in churches, sound design as people start to stay indoors more..!? [/quotePost]
I think their release dates are mostly based on when they anticipate have shippable products in their warehouse, as opposed to aiming for some "season" or whatever. Especially in these days of product manufacturing being influenced by so many external factors, making timetables less solidly predictable. They wouldn't want to announce something that isn't reasonably close to being available; nor would they want to tie up resources warehousing completed products without offering them for sale. So I think the day they announce any product will be based on when they start getting loaded onto ships and/or when they anticipate being able to have them available to dealers.

[quotePost id=121568][quotePost id=121560]Unfortunately, there's no evidence of this, these are "modelled" stats, based on flawed ideas about the rates of infectiousness within populations not informed of, nor able to easily procure means of prevention, and often not allowed to be prescribed all sorts of kinds of potential treatments and mitigating medicines.[/quotePost]

I posted links with evidence, you can choose to believe or not.
[/quotePost]

It's not about belief, well... it might be for you. There is evidence the jabs have negative efficacy. There is no evidence, other than models that are speculative (at best), indicating they're effective. And if you follow those articles to their sources, you'll find there's a dearth of actual evidence and quite a small number of sources of the models and no actual tracking of the vaccines. This is extremely odd, that there's nothing like what we've come to expect during the release procedures of new medicines, let alone new "vaccines", for which there are very thorough (or were) procedures for following up on every recipient, for years, because of thalidomide. This "fast tracking" against a mild disease, across all seven groups, all the way to pregnant women, should be enough to cause every person's hair to stand up on the back of their necks.

[quotePost id=121568]
[quotePost id=121560]Think about this... what is the current treatment protocol for a "case"?

Is it really so novel that nothing works against it?
[/quotePost]

See above. Eventually there were the monoclonal antibodies (initially experimental, and expensive) and paxlovid (essentially a combination of an existing pharmaceutical with a newly developed one)...

[/quotePost]

The two most famous recipients of paxlovid had their "cases" re-emerge immediately after taking paxlovid... it's not nearly as effective as it's claimed. And might have negative efficacy.

[quotePost id=121568]
but it took a while to come up with these solutions and to test them). But yeah, up to then, it was so novel that nothing was known to work against it. And there was no guarantee about how long developing treatments like these would take, and whether they would have bad side effects making them largely unsuitable. We were all in unknown territory for a good while. That doesn't mean that everyone who got it got seriously ill or died. People vary in their own levels of natural resistance and ability to combat it. But if you got it, and got a bad case of it... no, there was no treatment. That's kinda why so many people died.
[/quotePost]

The CDC were amongst those that knew differently about the effectiveness and mechanisms of action inherent to the two you've singled out as not working.

But put that aside... what about the correlation between vitamin D deficiency and disease impact, and death? And the clearing effectiveness of mega doses of vitamin C - something the Chinese IMMEDIATELY recommended for those showing signs of cytokine storms on CT scans?

Obviously speculation, but I think the main reason for the near equivalence of the MODX+ to the Montage is so that the Montage can be dropped entirely from the lineup, to be replaced by something in a different line. Most probably it'll have FM and AWM2, and might be somewhat patch compatible, but I think it'll be a proper return to full production workstation... and the p(l)andemic will likely be a significant part of the reasoning for this need for a true "at home, do it all". For all the kinds of musicians that enjoy that, and might not get to tour as much as before, or even go to studios to work with others, because we now know it's possible to lockdown the whole world, which means it will happen again, and again and again.

Yamaha has to have factored in the likelihood of subsequent lockdowns, and the reduced focus on live performance, and entertainment attendance, the world over, and what that does for creative thinking in those (which is near half in some populations) somewhat afraid to attend just about anything.

[quotePost id=121576]There is evidence the jabs have negative efficacy. [/quotePost]
I give you links for my points, I'd be glad to look at links supporting yours, if you'd provide them.

[quotePost id=121576]The two most famous recipients of paxlovid had their "cases" re-emerge immediately after taking paxlovid... it's not nearly as effective as it's claimed. And might have negative efficacy.[/quotePost]
I don't know who the two most famous are, but two is rarely a number to build a case on. Perspective on actual numbers is here: https://time.com/6257107/covid-rebound-infections-without-paxlovid/ - short version... rebound can occur with or without paxlovid. It happens in a minority of covid patients either way (even if there's uncertainty about in which case it happens more often). And, as stated there, “The reason we recommend Paxlovid is not to prevent rebound [infections] but to prevent hospitalization and death.”

[quotePost id=121576]And the clearing effectiveness of mega doses of vitamin C - something the Chinese IMMEDIATELY recommended for those showing signs of cytokine storms on CT scans? [/quotePost]Although numbers from China are considered unreliable, it might be hard to separate how much death reduction came from vitamin C vs. how much came from lockdowns that were much more severe than ours.

[quotePost id=121570]A good time to gain proficiency on your current Montage or MODX since the next generation will likely heavily leverage the current generation.[/quotePost]
Yeah I think they'll likely continue the line of having it compatible with previous Motifs and the Montage. Hopefully they can revamp some things like the UI. Even having an Undo/Back button that gets you back to the previous state would be a huge improvement, as so many times I've worked on something, pressed the wrong button by accident and couldn't get back to where it was, even with the trick you shared a few times on here. I read a post on one of the FaceBook forums whereby someone was fed up with the lack of some way to get back to the previous state.
But you're right, the new big hardware replacement (Yamaha Mosaic ?) will likely build off of the Montage. If they made a few things just a bit more UI based and user friendly, maybe more colour, etc., plus utilize newer technologies like MIDI 2.0, enhanced USB functionality, onboard sampling ability, etc. Will they leave the Genos as the "Workstation" and the new full hardware replacement a "Synth", or ditch the Genos entirely?

Maybe they are planning to discontinue the Genos sooner than that, reinstate the Montage+? as their Workstation with an added sequencer and an AN-X engine? Who knows, but it will be interesting to see what unfolds...

[quotePost id=121571]I think their release dates are mostly based on when they anticipate have shippable products in their warehouse, as opposed to aiming for some "season" or whatever. Especially in these days of product manufacturing being influenced by so many external factors, making timetables less solidly predictable. They wouldn't want to announce something that isn't reasonably close to being available; nor would they want to tie up resources warehousing completed products without offering them for sale. So I think the day they announce any product will be based on when they start getting loaded onto ships and/or when they anticipate being able to have them available to dealers.[/quotePost]
Yeah that makes more sense actually. I was kinda basing it off of what season would be the best date to release a product, but also based on past release dates for OS updates which were September and June.
But at the same time I wouldn't think that end of July/early August would be a great time to have a big new release because people are on vacation, busy at the cottage, etc., or for live musicians they may be gigging more heavily, summer festivals/concerts, and a lot of the hype that Yamaha depend on would be missed by many people. So if they have supply and availability of product, it might make some sense to delay a bit and time it so that it's not mid-summer..!?

@AnotherScott

If you track back through the "evidence" you've provided, you'll find the few resources that create the opinions that make the claims based... on models.

That should, I hope, send you searching for truths. Then we can talk about what is what.

As to China not being trustworthy... I'm from China. They did, as best they could, good faith efforts to distribute insights into what it was/is and how they treated it. Then they got suspicious about its origins and it's impacts on their populations, and reported on their findings. That's something that you should probably look into, too, since we've all been infected with it, since then. They've been very open about what they discovered about it, and how to treat it.

One of the most interesting findings has to do with nicotine.

Spam related Bump.

[quotePost id=121591]@AnotherScott

If you track back through the "evidence" you've provided, you'll find the few resources that create the opinions that make the claims based... on models.
[/quotePost]
Well sure, sometimes that's the only or best route to take. I mean, it's kind of hard to prove, for example, how many people did not die from something, except by modeling from statistical analysis. That doesn't mean it's invalid data.

As for the figures from China, here are a couple of alternate sources about why there is skepticism about their released figures...

https://archive.ph/rE2nP

https://archive.ph/4qGgU

(Though also, to whatever extent things there weren't as bad as they might have been, it's also relevant that China's lockdowns were among the most severe in the world.)

As for ivermectin, while not entirely useless, I don't understand why you would prefer it over something shown to be safer and/or more effective. I think this is a fair take on ivermectin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9135450/

It's harder to find anything at all positive to say about hydroxychloroquine -- anything that looked possibly promising early on, turned out not to be, AFAIK: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00085-0/fulltext

[quotePost id=121646][quotePost id=121591]@AnotherScott

If you track back through the "evidence" you've provided, you'll find the few resources that create the opinions that make the claims based... on models.
[/quotePost]
Well sure, sometimes that's the only or best route to take.

[/quotePost]
Never the best route, neither is it ever science, especially since it's not falsifiable, nor necessary to project in this manner for something of this significance.

[quotePost id=121646]
I mean, it's kind of hard to prove, for example, how many people did not die from something, except by modeling from statistical analysis. That doesn't mean it's invalid data.
[/quotePost]

This is a combination of straw manning and attempting to justify an odd desire to prove a negative. The first goal should be to analyse the effectiveness of something, which can, and must be measured, because it's combined with the responsibility of analysing the contrast between its risks and that of the disease... or it would be, if medicine's entire western premise wasn't "first, do no harm', which makes ANY harm intolerable.

Which is the issue - because lockdowns were issued to bring in the "vaccines are the only way out of this" narrative, which was never true. But this nonsensical claim that they then saved 20 million lives will be rolled out over and over again to justify the next lockdowns, and just about every business is aware of this, hence their reticence to risk anything that has any need for an open world.

[quotePost id=121646]
As for the figures from China, here are a couple of alternate sources about why there is skepticism about their released figures...

https://archive.ph/rE2nP

https://archive.ph/4qGgU

[/quotePost]

"alternate"???

These are the CIA's second favourite puppet and the voice of money.

[quotePost id=121646]
(Though also, to whatever extent things there weren't as bad as they might have been, it's also relevant that China's lockdowns were among the most severe in the world.)
[/quotePost]

So lockdowns work, if they're super egregious? You're only making the case stronger for more of your rights to be absconded in the night, and they will be. Which is exactly why Yamaha and everyone else making live focused products is having panic attacks. Yamaha, as I've stated on these forums before, is far more exposed than any other music company because they make so much of the equipment for things like school and university bands, etc.

[quotePost id=121646]
As for ivermectin, while not entirely useless, I don't understand why you would prefer it over something shown to be safer and/or more effective. I think this is a fair take on ivermectin: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9135450/

It's harder to find anything at all positive to say about hydroxychloroquine -- anything that looked possibly promising early on, turned out not to be, AFAIK: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00085-0/fulltext
[/quotePost]

My questions were about vitamin D (preventative) and C (treatment), the two things that have been proven to work in isolation. Both the things you're referencing need to be tested in regimes where both timing and dosing are important, as are the collaborating ingredients that lead to the best results. The mechanisms of action are known. The protocols created based on them have been followed by quite a few with astounding success rates that warrant much further investigation. Consideration of the mechanisms of actions in treatments is our real only way out of this.

Not stricter lockdowns, not more PPE, not more "vaccines", and definitely not a global means of shuttering the entire world adjudicated by the same organisations that just got so much wrong.

[quotePost id=121659][quotePost id=121646][quotePost id=121591]If you track back through the "evidence" you've provided, you'll find the few resources that create the opinions that make the claims based... on models.
[/quotePost]Well sure, sometimes that's the only or best route to take. [/quotePost]
Never the best route, neither is it ever science, especially since it's not falsifiable, nor necessary to project in this manner for something of this significance.
[quotePost id=121646]
I mean, it's kind of hard to prove, for example, how many people did not die from something, except by modeling from statistical analysis. That doesn't mean it's invalid data.[/quotePost]
This is a combination of straw manning and attempting to justify an odd desire to prove a negative.
[/quotePost]
My initial comments that you took issue with was that, while you bemoaned the consequences of lockdowns, travel restrictions and vaccines, I said they prevented deaths. But proving something was prevented means, yes, proving a negative, and so the best/only approach to that is often modeling. So yes, the evidence for that original point was based on modeling. I'm not saying all modeling is good, but it is wrong to invalidate/ignore any conclusions simply because they are based on modeling.

[quotePost id=121659]The first goal should be to analyse the effectiveness of something, which can, and must be measured, because it's combined with the responsibility of analysing the contrast between its risks and that of the disease... [/quotePost]
The other things I mentioned--i.e. safety/effectiveness of paxlovid, vaccines--were tested for safety/effectiveness, that info is not just based on modeling.

[quotePost id=121659]... or it would be, if medicine's entire western premise wasn't "first, do no harm', which makes ANY harm intolerable.[/quotePost]
"First do no harm" does not preclude determining whether benefits outweigh risks. There is practically no treatment for anything that, as safe and effective as it may be in general, cannot also carry some risk of some amount of harm to a particular individual, and that concept is by no means anathema to western medicine.

[quotePost id=121659][quotePost id=121646]As for the figures from China, here are a couple of alternate sources about why there is skepticism about their released figures...

https://archive.ph/rE2nP

https://archive.ph/4qGgU [/quotePost]

"alternate"???

These are the CIA's second favourite puppet and the voice of money.[/quotePost]
Now there's a strawman argument, taking issue with the sources (The Economist, The New York Times), rather than with the information presented.

[quotePost id=121646]So lockdowns work, if they're super egregious? [/quotePost]
My point was, to the extent that China's covid deaths were not as bad as they might have been, you seem to be attributing that to things like "mega doses of vitamin C" while ignoring the "super egregious" lockdowns. What is your evidence for attributing positive results more to the former than the latter?

[quotePost id=121646]Both the things you're referencing need to be tested in regimes where both timing and dosing are important, as are the collaborating ingredients that lead to the best results. The mechanisms of action are known. The protocols created based on them have been followed by quite a few with astounding success rates that warrant much further investigation. [/quotePost]
The things I referenced (hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, among other things) were studied, they were not shown to be as safe and effective compared to what has been approved (some links already provided).

What we know is that justifications of lockdowns were made, in their extended forms, on the implicit and explicit assumptions (made up) that vaccines are the way out of the lockdowns. We all heard this, in every state of every first world country.

Keep in mind, we locked down the healthy!

If you can't see that that's a circular argument going down a drain, then we're not nearly on the same page, primarily because you're not factoring in any of the costs of lockdowns - both material and psychological. Both of which are truly incalculable, including to Yamaha and the confidence of any and all companies considering projecting potential products into the future of people's desire to express themselves AND their ability to do it live, to any kind of meat space audience. And to their research and development teams... who do work that's always been best done within the immediacy of direct contact and requires the calmest and most confident possible minds in order to best do that most difficult of ingenious and innovate works that crafts great products from loose ideas and existing and potential technologies.

Enjoy the Montage. It might be the last great thing to come from Yamaha that's focused on live performance.

[quotePost id=121663]What we know is that justifications of lockdowns were made, in their extended forms, on the implicit and explicit assumptions (made up) that vaccines are the way out of the lockdowns. We all heard this, in every state of every first world country.[/quotePost]
Short term, the purpose of the fuller lockdowns was to stop the spread, stop hospitals from getting overwhelmed, prevent deaths. In the extended form I think you're talking about (where there was a return to a closer semblance of normal life, but still restrictions), the promise of a full end of those restrictions was talked about in terms of numerous things... yes the possibilities of vaccines, but also the possibilities of good treatments, the possibilities of good rapid testing... nobody knew exactly how long any of these would take, but they were all discussed as paths to resuming fuller normalcy.

[quotePost id=121663]Keep in mind, we locked down the healthy![/quotePost]
Of course. We locked down everyone, to slow the spread. To keep the healthy people healthy. That was kind of the point.

[quotePost id=121663]Enjoy the Montage. It might be the last great thing to come from Yamaha that's focused on live performance. [/quotePost]
Actually, to me, the CK beats the Montage as a board focussed on live performance. 😉

[quotePost id=121664]
[quotePost id=121663]Enjoy the Montage. It might be the last great thing to come from Yamaha that's focused on live performance. [/quotePost]
Actually, to me, the CK beats the Montage as a board focussed on live performance. ;-)[/quotePost]

I think it depends on your requirements for live. your budget and preferences...
If you are a one or two piece act and require a lot of sequencing a Montage would be the obvious choice, but yeah if it's playing with a full band, no sequencing, then the CK might be the better choice. CK might be good for practing as well with the onboard speakers.
There seems to be a fine line between the piano focused CP88, the Organ focussed YC88 and the CK88.
They can all do much of the same things and are designed for playing live.
I'm not sure about price, but I think the YC is the most expensive!? Usually you get what you pay for, so it likely has much better quality sound & functionality for organ, but can also do mostly the same piano and other sounds that the CP or CK can do as well. You'd have to weigh it such that is the extra cost justified for the organs or if you don't use much organ sounds then perhaps save the money and either the CP or CK may be the better choice..!?
I would think the YC would be a good competitor to the Nord's, since it is geared for organs, but can do pianos and other sounds really well...