YamahaSynth.com Forums

This is the place to talk about all things related to Yamaha Synthesizers!
  1. Blake
  2. Sherlock Holmes The Voice
  3. MONTAGE
  4. Wednesday, 16 March 2016
Questions or comments about "Motif to Montage Parts 1/2/3" can be posted here! The direct links to the articles are here:

MOTIF TO MONTAGE Part 1
MOTIF TO MONTAGE Part 2
MOTIF TO MONTAGE Part 3
Responses (23)
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
great information! how many user multisamples(waveforms) can Montage hold (loaded)?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 1
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I asked this question in the forum but I will ask it here as well.

Does a Montage Performance support both an AD Input Part (i.e, an external keyboard) and a USB Input Part ( i.e, a virtual instrument from my computer similar to the current Motif FW Part?

If so will there be similar Motif parameter control for these additional Performance Parts such as Volume, Pan, Reverb, Chorus and Dry Level. etc.?

Joe
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 2
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
MOTIF to MONTAGE Part 3 - "Arpeggio Content" = 10,000

Are you able to speak to how the user interface will facilitate PERFORMANCE Part arpeggio audition and selection?

Interested if the arpeggio-related workflow has been thought about given the new touch-based user interface e.g. new features like a unified view of the arpeggios used for up to 8 parts, a "Category-like" pop-up with capability to see related arpeggios by genre, arpname string (as in the MOTIF/MOXF VST Editor), ability to - in a unified view - turn off and on different parts while auditioning an arpeggio...that sort of thing.

P/S. Thanks for the articles.

Edited: added "Interested..."
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 3
Blake
Yamaha
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Great question, and YES: the UI has really made searching and for, auditioning and assigning arps much easier. Here are some screen shots and explanations:

"arp1": This is the Part1/Common/Arpeggio/Individual Screen in Montage. You can see Category, Sub Category, the Name and both Velocity and Gate Time off sets. 8 Arps can be selected per part (and those can be assigned to scenes to call up in real time).
"arp2": Shows arp category search which can you can enter by touching in the different arp boxes in the screen or with the physical controls as well). You can see the extensive library and how you can search by instrument type (Main) or musical genre (sub). You can call up arps by number as well and not the "Sort" at the bottom of the screen.
"arp3": What if you just want to see any arp with the word "jazz" in it. You can search by text now!

The entire process of finding, searching and deploying arps is really an improvement and is just one example of the how the workflow in Montage has been streamlined. As we move forward look for some docs in the "Resources" part of Yamahasynth about the arpeggio capabilities of Montage. This feature, coupled with the amazing power of the Motion Control System, really gives Montage some amazingly expressive capabilities.
Attachments (3)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 4
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Hi, what about user arps? I recall that somewhere else BM said you cannot create user arps on Montage, is that true? If yes, I am confused, why are there 256 user arp slots if you cannot create any? It would be also strange because I don't see any way around this...I mean, okay, you don't need a built-in sequencer because you can use a software DAW. You don't need built-in sampling because you could buy the Melas Waveform editor (although Yamaha should provide one, imo). But how can I create user arps? Thanks
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 5
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
"why are there 256 user arp slots if you cannot create any?"

Because XS/XF libraries might have user arps in them and you have to load them somewhere for them to work, simple as that.

It was stated here that almost nobody used "create user arp" functionality so it was not ported over to the new OS.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 6
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
But thats not a good design choice for a pro instrument, sorry :( Even if you do it rarely, you still want to be able to create a custom arp ... the process for creating user arps / modify existing arps should have been streamlined, not killed.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 7
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Some of that thought process may have been that your Motif "workstation" retains its usefulness and does not become totally obsolete. Keep it and use it for everything that the Montage can't do. The Montage is not really a Motif replacement because they do different things. This is probably the reason that the Montage is not called the Motif ZF. :)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 8
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. wrote:

...As we move forward look for some docs in the "Resources" part of Yamahasynth about the arpeggio capabilities of Montage. This feature, coupled with the amazing power of the Motion Control System, really gives Montage some amazingly expressive capabilities.


Thanks for the comeback on the arpeggio user interface; looking forward to "how to's".

As a sidebar note, I'm pretty sure that everyone will like to see "instructional videos" integrating all the moving "Parts" (pun intended), e.g.
- Overview (say from Part Selection through Performance Recording)
-. FM-X Part Editing Deep Dive
- AWM2 Part Editing Deep Dive
-. Performance Construction - Bread and Butter, e.g. non EDM, splits, layers
- Performance Construction - an EDM Performance, integrating Arpeggio / Motion Control / Sidechaining, Scenes, etc.
- Live Performance, e.g. Live Set, on stage setup, ...?
- Performance Recording
- Song Composition in Cubase, e.g. Performance Recording Enhancement / Re-Arrangement / Mixing / Mastering in Cubase (a series?)

Cheers.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 9
Blake
Yamaha
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Thanks Mike!

We have lots of articles coming as we get closer to Montage shipping in May. Stay tuned!
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 10
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Personally I think Yamaha are being a little selective in how the Montage is "spun", especially in the table in the 3rd article. Yes, you get an increase in performance parts from 4 to 8 (all with effects), but you have also dropped Multi Mode and the ability to have 16 parts available ;)

Also, I am intrigued about the constant reference to the DX7 heritage. You have forgotten the even more Advanced FM (AFM) in the SY Range (I still love my SY99/TG77), and when FM-X appears to be an FS1r with the formant bits stripped out (why), then I thought you would have been leaning on all of your FM heritage, not just the DX7.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 11
Bad Mister
Yamaha
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
A Montage Performance is defined by having up to sixteen Parts.

AFM as found in the SY77/99 circa 1989/1991 was a quite different engine. The interaction between that FM engine and the AWM2 was a far different animal from what is going on in the Motion Control Synthesis Engine. Back in SY days we were really excited about the potential of modifying a sine wave with a sample... On paper sounds like a great idea... I mean samples are such accurate renderings of instrument sounds, and sine waves start so devoid of harmonics (by definition a sine wave is only the Fundamental pitch)... In actual use, the more complex the Modifier the quicker the result goes to "noise" (all frequencies, chaos); while the whole interaction of AWM2 > AFM did create some very detailed and artful sounds, they mostly were in the noise end of the sound scale. Attack components, and other musical noises were its forte.

And the 'any Operator could modulate any other Operator' thing, well ... At the end of the day it did give you an infinite number of unexplored possibilities. (I do miss the crazy feedback possibilities). But when you visit how AWM2 and FM-X are integrated into this Motion Control Synthesis Engine, you'll find it a much more mature look at musical possibilities. Rather than integrating them at the wave level, the Montage has new unique ways to have the amplitude envelope of one thing, for example, modify the results of another.

As to your query on "formant shaping" being stripped out, yes, FS totally not necessary here (IMHO)... replaced with something we think musicians can actually use (without a need for degree in math and science) see your other post for details.

An while the FM-X is compatible with DX FM, to imply that this is all it is, is completely wrong. Yes it can translate all the original DX FM Voices, I mean, why not? This gives it the biggest library of sounds at time of launch of any synth ever, but if you think that's all it is... Hold on to your hat, you couldn't be more wrong. I can see a lot of thought went into what was selected and the control options that until now, never existed in any of the previous FM based engines.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 12
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Bagelos, thank you for your reply! but i was wondering about a theoretical maximum of waveforms. Because i will use a lot of small size waveforms.
for example i will need about 100 different multi-waveforms, each one of them about 5mb. :) is that possible?
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 13
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Bad Mister wrote:

A Montage Performance is defined by having up to sixteen Parts.



But it drops to eight if you are using sound switching? Which once you have used live you will not want to be without.

Thanks for taking the time to reply, I am genuinely interested, but accept Yamaha may never wish to answer it publicly, why the marketing spin on the DX7 where your FM start point is much further up the food chain. I.e. you have far more heritage to lean on than just the DX7

Why the interest? I am somebody who is still passionate about synths and how they actually make their sounds, as opposed to just being interested in the end result that pops out of the output jacks (important of course!) or what sound libraries are available.

I look forward to demoing the Montage when it is available.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 14
Bad Mister
Yamaha
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Thanks for taking the time to reply, I am genuinely interested, but accept Yamaha may never wish to answer it publicly, why the marketing spin on the DX7 where your FM start point is much further up the food chain. I.e. you have far more heritage to lean on than just the DX7
If you remember the DX7 and DX FM, you're probably at least in your late forties, that's a reality. And while the vast majority of folks who buy pro synthesizers are (at least) that age, it is imperative to talk about the DX7 for those who were not alive or who were alive but just not synth-aware at the time. So that's why you have to 'talk' about it. It was a digital synthesis format that pre-dates even samples...

It comes as a shock to many that the DX7 was 33 years ago. I'm sure you remember. But if you are now just in your 20's or 30's perhaps, you've only heard rumors about how it sold almost half a million units worldwide, and how it changed everything.... but that it was "hard to program" or that six operators are better than four and eight are better than six, without actually knowing what an Operator is... (The "it's like an oscillator only different" explanation ...)

It is this and a score of other issues that need to be addressed, and readdressed... (Perhaps not for you or me, but certainly for a new generation).

Back in the day
It occurred to me that when I was first demonstrating DX7s to potential first time synth buyers back in 1983, I was showing many musicians a "menu driven" interface for the very first time! The DX7 was the first synth I remember with a screen that was more than stick figures of numbers. In 1983: very few musicians used or even owned a computer at the time - 4-track cassette units were the typical "home studio" (all hail the PortaStudio!)

The reputation of "hard to use" mostly comes from the fact that, unlike preset analog synths at the same time which allowed for guessing (often mistaken for being 'intuitive') - where if you didn't really know or like what a parameter knob did, you could move it and just put it back. Not only did one need to get used to a menu driven interface, it required you know what you wanted to change.

Today it's Child's Play
Fast forward 33 years, you'd be hard pressed to find a musician now who has not operated a "menu driven" interface. Everyone can operate a cash machine, today ... I know I was showing menus to some folks for the first time in that DX7 screen. What was deemed "rocket science" in 1983 is literally, "child's play" today. I've watched 3 year olds navigate software on a tablet device. It is literally child's play now. It was not in 1983. I'd have an easier time teaching FM to third graders now, than I did college students back then. (I don't think that's an exaggeration, do you?)
Accessing the parameters was a huge stumbling block for many back then.

Yes, there is still a lot of Math...
Now, working the DX FM was not simply working the menu driven parameters, but what I'm saying is... I saw that fact prevent many users from ever exploring the possibilities any deeper. And while many of us are confident that the "joy of FM" programming will find a new audience (I'm certain it will), we also recognize that many musicians love to amass scores and scores of pre-made libraries ('just in case'). And since the fundamental original engine is the archetype - it naturally has the broadest possible compatibility potential. A program is being written to do all the conversions necessary.

And combine the thousands of Motif ES/XS/XF with the tens of thousands of DX7 FM sounds, these can be used as basic building blocks for those who are not deep synth programmers. For those who do not get into actually "how" the synth makes sound... But wish to start with building blocks that already have some expertise built-in. If all you do is take pre-made sounds and apply the Motion Control Synth Engine features, that's one level of programming on this synth.

I'm not sure what to call them, but there are factory setups in Montage that are complete interactive musical compositions. They are like this bottled potential energy that you turn into kinetic energy by playing a single chord or note! Different rhythmic interactions are setup, and as the 'player' you set these components in motion in a variety of ways. And you shape the outcome via the array of controllers. It's real time, it's performance art, it's impossible to repeat it exactly the same ever again, it's real time. It's not for everyone but you owe it to yourself to explore the possibilities.

Now, it is one thing to sit down and 'perform' (interact) with these as-they-are, but when you begin to explore the potential by putting your own creative energy into creating these rhythmic interaction compositions/constructions, that's when you know... Or begin to see the Montage potential.

I see Montage as the first of a new class of synthesizer. My esteemed co-worker Nate, put it like this... For those who can already swim, get out your scuba gear, you can dive very deep. But if you are new to all of this and only want to snorkel (stay near the surface) you can thoroughly enjoy the experience.

And it's still a creative enjoyable experience.

Tone Wheel Organ constructions
For example, if in your head you limit your thinking in building a tone wheel organ sound to just the AWM2 sample of a specific drawbar, or even if you know that an FM sine wave could easily approximate a tone wheel (simply another type of sine wave generator), you've only looked at the surface of what Montage is constructed to allow.

Each FM-X Part has eight Operators, as many as eight FM-X Parts can make up a "Keyboard Controlled" Performance. So if you think you are limited to eight drawbars, you're still missing a big portion of the Montage picture. Each Part could be a single component in building the entire sound!

Building a B3 sound could use a combination of AWM2 samples and FM-X operators... Things like "leakage" and "key clicks" certainly the domain of the audio sample; while the fundamental tones can be built with (new) and fascinating character with just FM-X or by combing AWM2+FM-X. (Think 64 components).

(There's an example where they use the equivalent of an entire Motif XF Voice (where 8 Elements are available) to construct a detailed noise component). The detailed Rhodes e.piano "noise" is priceless. If you've ever played a Suitcase73 with the amplifier section off you can't help but laugh out loud when you recall this "component". What it does when mixed in with the body of the sound not only makes it sound right, it makes it "feel right".

The fact that a playable (8 Part) Performance can be a TX816 built from 8-Operator modules, should not be lost, forgotten, or minimized. There are far more FM data available in DX7 format, than any of the other iterations... so it makes sense to concentrate focus starting there for conversions. The new engine will immediately improve them. (I think a tutorial series on "two-operator" programming is in order, because every one of those sounds will have two yet unused Operators!)

Sum it up, Phil
We can't wait to set this beast free. Everything to everyone? Probably not, nothing ever is.. But there are synths before Montage, and there are going to be synth after this point in time, but this one is going to mark a shift in direction.

Being able to pull off musical articulations in a computer with a massive library and a mouse, is a legitimate way to work (especially in music-for-hire situations) but a synth that deals with being able to actually "perform" advanced articulations, as a real time thing, is where this instrument is going... "Let's take it to the stage..."

Sorry, I run on ... But just wanted to give some additional real world reaction based on sitting with this new synth for a few months now. Thanks for the question. Bear with the DX7 references/spin, but rest assured this isn't your grand dad's synth :) (ouch!)
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 15
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
I'm old enough to remember the launch of the DX7 and reading the brochures with great excitement. I'd still love to own a DX1 but the Montage 8 might have to suffice - even though it lacks polyphonic aftertouch. :-)

However, a lot of people forget that the DX7 also launched a generation of synthesizers that had close to impenetrable user interfaces. Even today, we still find many synths (including some from Yamaha) that are soul destroying to programme so I am hoping that the display on the Montage makes this process a lot easier otherwise we might have just another 'rompler' on our hands. That would be a real shame.

M
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 16
Bad Mister
Yamaha
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
My point was, yes, menu driven musical instruments were new to everyone in 1983. Menu driven interfaces are mostly child's play today. One HUGE stumbling block has been removed through familiarity and passage of time.

Programming is an art. Anyone can do it, but only a few can do it really well. It's like Audio Mixing. That is true whether you are dealing with analog or digital gear.

More people think they can program analog because they have a finite set of parameters that they can experiment with and you can just freely experiment (once you know and get down the basics) ... Now that the menu-driven interface isn't NEW, perhaps the basics will be easier to get down. In FM, for example, knowing how to build a Sawtooth wave, or build a Square or Pulse wave, is a fundamental... On an analog synth you simply select it. But once you can construct the basic wave shapes, you're on your way.

Programming on any synth is a matter of 'focused' experimentation... And finding a level of interacting that doesn't hurt your head. I'm confident that with all the different levels of programming available on Montage, many will find their own level of satisfaction.
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 17
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
natalini
Online
MICROSCALE IMPLEMENTATION SAME THAN THE XF? NO PERFORMANCE LEVEL.......
have we to use multiple copy of the same voice for can play it in different temperament ? as this function in the xf is only implemented in voice parmeter, not in performance mode. can not store a perf with its own scales tuning setting? that is so illogical. i hope that will be not the case..
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 18
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
Bangleos - I just read your 3 articles (extremely informative/exciting) and also read the keyboard magazine review today. I would like to very briefly describe my current Motif usage, then ask a few questions as I contemplate a Montage in my future . . .

I operate a full-time jingle house with Cubase 8, and a Motif XS 6, making extensive use of audio routing and channel grouping with the mLan/Firewire.

Additionally with this rig, I prepare MIDI sequences of pop tunes, and/or "jam" tunes which I then load into my Motif XF6, (usually the pattern sequencer) - - which is only used in a wide variety of live gigs.

There is a variety of reasons why I'll eventually own a Montage . . (I can afford it, it looks like a riot, more access to sounds, etc.)

Here are some questions:

- - Is there a VST Editor for the Montage that I can use with Cubase?

- - If yes, and I were to replace the Motif XS6 with a Montage, would the VST Editor be reasonably backward compatible with the 100s of past jingle projects I've produced the last several years?

- - Could I use BOTH my Motif XS6 (mLAN / FIREWIRE) - - And a new Montage (USB interface) with Cubase simultaneosly? (overkill, I know, but it sounds like a party, eh?LOL)

Thanks in advance for any/all input. - Pete Radd
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 19
Accepted Answer Pending Moderation
To some degree but, not often, the montage's feature set is described as having a vastly or greatly improved AWM2 engine!
Really? It's not AWM3 or other. In fact Yamaha is often describing Montage's AWM2 engine as the same one that we all know. The only difference Yamaha has noted , is that there is more memory of sounds, waveform samples, etc. This fact does not by default change the synth engine simply because it has more memory.
So, if I am incorrect, please state clearly what exactly has changed regarding AWM2, I havent heard even the the remotest wording to anything different re AWM2 except EFX processor and insert efx but those are not the AMP,FILT ENV, LFO etc, etc which comprise the actual synth engine
  1. more than a month ago
  2. MONTAGE
  3. # 20
  • Page :
  • 1
  • 2


There are no replies made for this post yet.
Be one of the first to reply to this post!
2018 © Yamaha Corporation of America and Yamaha Corporation. All rights reserved.