[quotePost id=121664][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]

Maybe it's because I'm related to a lot of folks that work in various aspects of two different cultures of medicine, but perhaps it's just not common knowledge...

No time in modern medical history have lockdowns ever been presented as even a vaguely good idea for healthy populations in the face of any health crisis. We know, as a society, that the cost of lockdowns in any moderately medically capable society will always be worse (in lives lost, years lost, and quality of life lost), in fact far worse, than any kind of possible pandemic's impact on an "advanced" civilisation.

That's if it was just two weeks to slow the spread. But we all got far more than that, and the ability of the "leaders" to do it again, because you (the Royal you) believe what those leaders said about their lockdowns of us.

That's truly bizarre.

Do some of your own research, despite personal research being lampooned. If you can read and retain more than mere propaganda, you'll find that you've been lied to on scales and across scopes that were previously unimaginable.

The pivots should have given this game away to anyone even remotely paying attention.

Now, sadly, the world is largely held hostage by the powers that have shown they can do this to us all, and we're all suffering varying forms and degrees of Stockholm syndrome. Yet we'd all like Yamaha to take the kinds of risks they would have before the world's economy and peoples were shown to be vulnerable to this kind of insane power grab and near total usurping of freedoms previously thought inalienable?

[quotePost id=121666][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...[/quotePost]
Sure, that's why I said "to me." 😉 For me, as a performance board, CK beats Montage for things like ease of assembling splits/layers, ease of tweaking sounds (either in advance of the gig to setup your sound, or tweaking at the gig without having to set up assignments ahead of time), and of course travel weight! In fact, as a live performer, I never even considered the possibility of a Montage... I bought a MODX because as a performer who has no roadies, I would not be interested in something as heavy as a Montage. To me, its travel weight makes it more of a studio tool than a live performance board, unless you're in the world of road crews and backlines. Certainly when it comes to the 88, at least, though personally, even the smaller ones are above my weight threshold these days. I see MODX and CK both as great gigging boards, with different strengths... MODX letting you manage to do almost anything you want, CK allowing you to do most of what you need, as quickly and easily as possible. Though there are some things I'd like to see enhanced about the CK to really nail that down... but that's a topic for another thread. (Or ideascale.)

The bigger point I was aiming at, though, was that, even IF Montage ended up being the last board of its general type, there are numerous paths to "great board for live performance." So picking up on the rest of your post, yes, for me, the CP, YC, and CK series have been some of their very best live performance boards, and some of the most appealing boards Yamaha has ever come out with. Some people moan that Yamaha's new products are generally "only" evolutionary builds on what has come before, and this set of 3 boards has been an exception to that, marking a bigger departure in approach than is typical. (The Refaces being the only other recent example of that that I can think of.)

[quotePost id=121666]
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. [/quotePost]
I don't even see its sequencer as much of a live tool. In a 1-2 piece act, if you need backing tracks, I think either a "traditional" sequencer (which people complain the Montage lacks) or one of their arrangers would probably do a better job.

[quotePost id=121666]
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.[/quotePost]
The YC is certainly the pick of this litter for organ (and I'd say EP as well, due to the additional fx and amp simulations compared to the CP), the CP the pick for acoustic pianos, the YC or CP for "pro" build quality (i.e. metal chassis, internal power supply, balanced outs). But the newer CK does have some tricks of its own as well, despite the lower price.

[quotePost id=121677]No time in history have lockdowns ever been presented as even a vaguely good idea for healthy populations, in the face of any crisis in health.[/quotePost]
Through most of human history, there was no mass communication as effective as what we have today. But whatever we did or didn't do... it didn't always work. e.g. https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/plague-black-death-quarantine-history-how-stop-spread/

[quotePost id=121677]We know, as a species, that the cost of lockdowns in advanced civilisations will always be worse (in lives lost, years lost, and quality of life lost) worse than any kind of possible pandemic.[/quotePost]I do not believe we know that. But maybe you can point to someone who has modeled it? 😉

[quotePost id=121678]
[quotePost id=121666]
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. [/quotePost]
I don't even see its sequencer as much of a live tool. In a 1-2 piece act, if you need backing tracks, I think either a "traditional" sequencer (which people complain the Montage lacks) or one of their arrangers would probably do a better job.
[/quotePost]
I've never even looked at the onboard sequencer nor would a "traditional" sequencer or arranger work for me. I'm too spoiled & used to doing all the sequencing in Pro Tools/DAW. Several of my songs, I even have switching Scenes set in the sequencing, which come in handy when playing with both hands and doing a lot of scene switching throughout a song. I have a few medley's where I combined bits from 3 or 4 songs, such as Queen for example.
In one song I have the Scenes switching a lot and while I'm playing two different PARTs/splits using both hands, the sequencing is also playing the notes on a vocoder PART that I sing along with ... Otherwise I'd need a 3rd hand :p

[quotePost id=121678]
[quotePost id=121666]
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.[/quotePost]
The YC is certainly the pick of this litter for organ (and I'd say EP as well, due to the additional fx and amp simulations compared to the CP), the CP the pick for acoustic pianos, the YC or CP for "pro" build quality (i.e. metal chassis, internal power supply, balanced outs). But the newer CK does have some tricks of its own as well, despite the lower price.
[/quotePost]
The videos I've watched showing the YC, I think it would be a good competitor to the Nord's, which are also high quality and designed for organs... I'd be curious to know what the sales of the YC might have done to Nord sales..!?

The YC also appears to have really well done pianos. Is it as good or close to the CP?

[quotePost id=121680]The YC also appears to have really well done pianos. Is it as good or close to the CP?[/quotePost]
Yes, it just doesn't have as many. Here's a chart I put together...

Wow, they are nearly identical with pianos (YC & CP), and the YC has the most important ones, except for the Bosendorfer, which would be the only difference IMHO, but they have more than 83% the same pianos, and I could live without the Bosendorfer, so for me the YC holds up on pianos exceptionally well against the CP. For me they are basically equal... 🙂

Nice chart btw!! 😉

The real comparison would be the Yamaha YC88 against the Nord Stage 4...!! 😉

I don't have a general CP except I have the CP1, but I do have the CK and the YC and the YC is more refined and authentic sounding literally playing them A to B. Whatever internal processing and/or output or even waveforms, etc. the YC is almost as good as the CP1. Just like butter. The CK sounds similar but something is missing, yet still a fun board with awesome UI. I sure hope they make a YC quality level CK one day. CK is just a little too toy-ish to be taken seriously but it's as handy as anything you can buy if not the supreme leader in its price class. The YC73 for me is still the best you can get IMO and getting better. It remains to be determined whether the CK can be upgraded or not. Nothing stated about expandability.

[quotePost id=121686]It remains to be determined whether the CK can be upgraded or not. Nothing stated about expandability. [/quotePost]
Montage/MODX, CP, YC were all announced as being designed as platforms they would expand upon with additional content. CK, conspicuously then, was not. So I would assume not... and if anything comes, it will be a bonus!

[quotePost id=121678]

[quotePost id=121677]We know, as a species, that the cost of lockdowns in advanced civilisations will always be worse (in lives lost, years lost, and quality of life lost) worse than any kind of possible pandemic.[/quotePost]I do not believe we know that. But maybe you can point to someone who has modeled it? ;-)[/quotePost]

It's on the creators and enforcers of lockdowns to show (and prove) that they're safe and effective.

Or rely on beliefs, since most are more than happy to give up their freedoms based on what the media tell them to believe, for the "great good".

[quotePost id=121695][quotePost id=121678][quotePost id=121677]We know, as a species, that the cost of lockdowns in advanced civilisations will always be worse (in lives lost, years lost, and quality of life lost) worse than any kind of possible pandemic.[/quotePost]I do not believe we know that. But maybe you can point to someone who has modeled it? ;-)[/quotePost]
It's on the creators and enforcers of lockdowns to show (and prove) that they're safe and effective.[/quotePost]
Ok, so then it sounds like you're agreeing that we do not know, for certain, as a species, that lockdown is always the worse alternative, since your only counter is saying that lockdown proponents haven't shown/proven otherwise, which of course, itself doesn't prove anything. Your perspective here reminds me of the meme with a guy at a desk making some unsupportable point, with a sign that says "prove me wrong."

Though besides that, the only way it even could be shown would be via modeling, which you won't trust. But you can't really "predict the future" any other way, i.e. there's no way to prove what will happen if you do or do not implement behavior X except by modeling it using available data.

[quotePost id=121696][quotePost id=121695][quotePost id=121678][quotePost id=121677]We know, as a species, that the cost of lockdowns in advanced civilisations will always be worse (in lives lost, years lost, and quality of life lost) worse than any kind of possible pandemic.[/quotePost]I do not believe we know that. But maybe you can point to someone who has modeled it? ;-)[/quotePost]
It's on the creators and enforcers of lockdowns to show (and prove) that they're safe and effective.[/quotePost]
Ok, so then it sounds like you're agreeing that we do not know, for certain, as a species, that lockdown is always the worse alternative, since your only counter is saying that lockdown proponents haven't shown/proven otherwise, which of course, itself doesn't prove anything. Your perspective here reminds me of the meme with a guy at a desk making some unsupportable point, with a sign that says "prove me wrong."

Though besides that, the only way it even could be shown would be via modeling, which you won't trust. But you can't really "predict the future" any other way, i.e. there's no way to prove what will happen if you do or do not implement behavior X except by modeling it using available data.
[/quotePost]

You have to be kidding. Nobody can be this insane.