Yamaha Montage M Piano's and Electric Keys vs. YC Series etc

[AnthonyM]

Hi There,

 

Has anyone done a comparison of the acoustic, electric pianos etc available in the Montage M as compared to the YC series. I'm looking at both. I know that the Montage is arguably an all around keyboard rather than a digital piano. But I was just interested to know if the sample ROM was the same, since the patch names are the same. For example, they both have CFX, Nashville, Felt and Hamburg Grand pianos, some of which were issued as an update for the YC series. So wondering if the sample set is the same or if the samples used for the Montage referred to as elements are what would be a condensed version of the sample set found in their CP and YC range. I know that the Montage has close to 10 GB of ROM where I believe the YC Series has about 3 GB.

 

To be truthful, when playing in a live band situation, no one would probably notice any difference. But in a solo piano context I was just wondering. Also the YC has an Organ update that makes it a very strong bottom or top keyboard. It also has the FM engine like the Montage M. Added to that the 88 key has a wooden key action and I've seen opinions on YouTube that the 73 and 61 key waterfall actions are very nice. I've seen the YouTube video's on both, but still am undecided about which way to go in trying to put together a live rig.

 

Was wondering also how that 61 key waterfall action compares to the Nord Stage 3 Compact.

 

I've also just purchased a Korg Wavestate SE and had purchased the Wavestate module for synths sounds after watching video's presented by Maik Schott on YouTube - 80's sounds.

I know someone has mentioned him here before. His programming is fantastic. But purchased the keyboard also to control and switch off between multiple song patches live as there are multiple patches per song.

 

Your thoughts please:  Montage M on the bottom with YC73 or 61 on top or YC88 on the bottom with another keyboard like the Wavestate SE on top. Also have a ASM Hydrasynth Deluxe and a Novation Summit so just trying to put together the best rig I can to cover all of the bases. Right now I am missing the Meat and Potato's sounds.

 

Will post another inquiry on using software - how many of you are actively using it live. Have seen some sound developers offering patches using the Arturia X Collection which I've just purchased a subscription for on SPLICE. One of these developers, NARFSOUNDS is doing his programming using this suite of software along with Gig Performer, although he also has a Mainstage program bank and hardware Montage, Motif, Nord and Fantom banks available.

 

Am very hesitant about using software live to run sequences and backing tracks. But if only having 1 keyboard player in a live band, all of the parts can't be played live at once. Especially if your doing something other than Classic Rock, let's say 80's music to the present.

 

Thanks,

  Anthony

[TJ Cornish]

I have a Montage M8X on the bottom and a Hammond XK5 on top for my rig. The Montage M has the analog engine which is not present in the YC and has a significantly larger sample bank than the YC or prior Montage non-M. 

 

The Montage M goes the extra mile in terms of programmability and raw power - 400 notes of polyphony between all the engines and a huge number of effects processors. If you’re looking for meat and potatoes only, the YC is probably fine live; if you’re looking for the subtlety of French cooking but with the flavor range of being able to play everything from gumbo to Chang Mai Thai to tamales to Tikka Masala to American barbecue all at the same time, the Montage M can do that to an incredible degree (with the exception of the organ engine).

 

You can read my and others’ opinions in more detail in the various Montage M threads, but in short, the YC is much more comparable to the Nord line than the Montage M is, for better and worse. The Montage is a “more is more” keyboard. It can do everything (other than a tone wheel organ engine, though it can sort of do it via samples if organ is the only thing you need to do at once), and it can be programmed to sound much more like the original recordings than the YC which is more geared to “dial a patch and play”. In order to get the most out of the Montage M, you need to learn how to use the darn thing, and some have found that daunting. The Montage M is also the physically largest and close to the heaviest keyboard out there. If you don’t have the logistical capability to handle that, it could be a challenge to schlep.

 

I can’t offer too much related to different keyboard actions as I have a Nord allergy and I have not played a YC. I like the Montage M action - I find it a good balance for piano work and synth work. It’s heavier than I like for organ, but as this is not really an organ board, that can be forgiven. The action is slightly more to my taste than Korg’s RH3, and I can’t stand Roland’s Fantom/RD-2000 action which to me requires far too much force.

 

The hardware/software question has been wrestled with to an extended degree. Hardware synths still live, but there is a lot of software out there, too. I have hired and then fired first MainStage and then later Omnisphere/Keyscape multiple times; I do IT for a day job and I have enough dang computers and software in my life; if hardware can do what I need - and the Montage M has scratched most of my personal itches - I’m going to keep the computers as far away from the music as I can. I know others feel differently.

[HammondDave]

6 hours ago, TJ Cornish said:

I have a Montage M8X on the bottom and a Hammond XK5 on top for my rig. The Montage M has the analog engine which is not present in the YC and has a significantly larger sample bank than the YC or prior Montage non-M. 

 

The Montage M goes the extra mile in terms of programmability and raw power - 400 notes of polyphony between all the engines and a huge number of effects processors. If you’re looking for meat and potatoes only, the YC is probably fine live; if you’re looking for the subtlety of French cooking but with the flavor range of being able to play everything from gumbo to Chang Mai Thai to tamales to Tikka Masala to American barbecue all at the same time, the Montage M can do that to an incredible degree (with the exception of the organ engine).

 

You can read my and others’ opinions in more detail in the various Montage M threads, but in short, the YC is much more comparable to the Nord line than the Montage M is, for better and worse. The Montage is a “more is more” keyboard. It can do everything (other than a tone wheel organ engine, though it can sort of do it via samples if organ is the only thing you need to do at once), and it can be programmed to sound much more like the original recordings than the YC which is more geared to “dial a patch and play”. In order to get the most out of the Montage M, you need to learn how to use the darn thing, and some have found that daunting. The Montage M is also the physically largest and close to the heaviest keyboard out there. If you don’t have the logistical capability to handle that, it could be a challenge to schlep.

 

I can’t offer too much related to different keyboard actions as I have a Nord allergy and I have not played a YC. I like the Montage M action - I find it a good balance for piano work and synth work. It’s heavier than I like for organ, but as this is not really an organ board, that can be forgiven. The action is slightly more to my taste than Korg’s RH3, and I can’t stand Roland’s Fantom/RD-2000 action which to me requires far too much force.

 

The hardware/software question has been wrestled with to an extended degree. Hardware synths still live, but there is a lot of software out there, too. I have hired and then fired first MainStage and then later Omnisphere/Keyscape multiple times; I do IT for a day job and I have enough dang computers and software in my life; if hardware can do what I need - and the Montage M has scratched most of my personal itches - I’m going to keep the computers as far away from the music as I can. I know others feel differently.

I am a huge Yamaha fan. I gig with a MODX+ and love its range of sounds.  But why would Yamaha produce a $5000 synth with a bad Hammond organ engine?  Are the Yamaha engineers incapable of reproducing a decent Hammond organ and Leslie sound?  Really?  
 

And while you are at it, Yamaha, how about some normal sized keys for your keybeds…

[AnotherScott]

9 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

Are the Yamaha engineers incapable of reproducing a decent Hammond organ and Leslie sound?  

 

From what I've read, they did add their improved YC61/73/88 rotary effect to the Montage M.

[rogs]

13 hours ago, AnthonyM said:

 

....73 and 61 key waterfall actions are very nice. I've seen the YouTube video's on both, but still am undecided about which way to go in trying to put together a live rig.

 

.... Was wondering also how that 61 key waterfall action compares to the Nord Stage 3 Compact.

Only the YC61 has waterfall keys. Both the YC73 and YC88 have weighted keybeds (altough not he same one!). 

Also the YC61 keys are Yamaha 'synth width' keys (159mm octaves) whilst the YC73 and YC88 both have 'full width' keys (164mm octaves).

I found it very strange trying to play organ on a weighted keybed.... doesn't bother some folk though.

 

I like the YC61 keybed, and wish they'd made the YC73 with a waterfall keybed, and just left the YC88 as the weighted version...... But they didn't!

 

The Nord has a harder and 'springier' action than the YC61 ... but the Nord does use 'full width' standard keys!.... I don't like the Nord action personally.

 

There really is no substitute for actually trying these different actions for yourself , but that's becoming more and more difficult as bricks and mortar keyboard showrooms disappear... I realise how lucky I am, having a major showroom less than 5 miles away, here in the UK.

[TJ Cornish]

11 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

 

From what I've read, they did add their improved YC61/73/88 rotary effect to the Montage M.

Yes, the rotary effect is there, but the board only has 8 sliders, so you either have to vote one drawbar off the island, leave it always at the same level, or reprogram so 2 always track together. Also, the tone wheels are sample-based, so every note played takes 9 notes of polyphony. This goes fast since you only get 128 notes of polyphony unless you do tricks to load samples to the other ASIC. If I didn’t want to bring my XK5, I would figure out a software organ to use rather than the internal one in the Montage.

 

I don’t have a good feel for if Yamaha would release a tone wheel engine like Roland did for the Fantom. From what I have gathered, the Fantom chips are FPGAs that can be rewritten, while the Montage SWP70 custom chips are ASICs and not as flexible to add drastically different things. The Montage M has a reasonably powerful general-purpose CPU that I believe does the analog engine; I don’t know if there is enough space/power there to do an organ model. I could be wrong on any or all of the above.

[HammondDave]

But they have known for generations of motifs that their organ engine sucked.  Maybe when they decided to add $500 to the new M series, they could have invested in a beefier processor…. And a ninth slider. Don’t get me started…

[locture]

I've tried them both.

 

The piano tones are the same. I mean, subtle difference if tested with similar effects. Very crisp, up-tuned but thin so every piano model sounds like a Yamaha, but not very detailed (no sympathetic string resonance). Clearly targeting stage performance to cut thru the mix rather than being a real acoustic piano for a player.

 

I didn't play with the EPs on the YC a lot. IMHO the ones on Montage M sound generally better. I might be biased though because that one is $5000.

 

The organs on Montage M are sampled. YC gets an individual organ engine and nine drawbars. So there is no comparison.

[JFN]

I have a Montage Mx 88 note and a YC88. They have the same piano models for the most part, but when I compare the same model, e.g., C7, Bosendorfer, etc., there seems to be more detail in the Montage M samples.

 

[Aynsley Green]

19 hours ago, locture said:

I've tried them both.

 

The piano tones are the same. I mean, subtle difference if tested with similar effects. Very crisp, up-tuned but thin so every piano model sounds like a Yamaha, but not very detailed (no sympathetic string resonance). Clearly targeting stage performance to cut thru the mix rather than being a real acoustic piano for a player.

 

I didn't play with the EPs on the YC a lot. IMHO the ones on Montage M sound generally better. I might be biased though because that one is $5000.

 

The organs on Montage M are sampled. YC gets an individual organ engine and nine drawbars. So there is no comparison.

 

There is Sympathetic String Resonance on the CP/YC - though on the YC it takes up an FX slot. It's not as convincing as the Nord String Resonance, but it helps. 

 

Nearly everything the YC has is also in the Montage M, with the exception of the not-bad modelled Organ engine.

That said, 18kg vs 30kg. 

 

These days I bring a YC88 for pianos, and a NS4C up top for organ/synths/fiddly stuff. Workstations are powerful but they're heavy and time-consuming to program, and probably overkill for 80% of people's needs, it must be said. 

[locture]

8 hours ago, Aynsley Green said:

 

There is Sympathetic String Resonance on the CP/YC - though on the YC it takes up an FX slot. It's not as convincing as the Nord String Resonance, but it helps. 

As far as I can recall, the FX on YC is actually damper resonance, not the sympathetic string resonance. It's only triggered when you have pedal down.

 

The sympathetic string resonance happens, say, when you strike a key while holding another chord, and you only hear the resonance from the chord keys' corresponding overtones. It's called VRM and you can find it in Yamaha's digital pianos, but it does not present in the YC/CP series.

[Aynsley Green]

14 hours ago, locture said:

As far as I can recall, the FX on YC is actually damper resonance, not the sympathetic string resonance. It's only triggered when you have pedal down.

 

The sympathetic string resonance happens, say, when you strike a key while holding another chord, and you only hear the resonance from the chord keys' corresponding overtones. It's called VRM and you can find it in Yamaha's digital pianos, but it does not present in the YC/CP series.

I stand corrected. That's a shame Yamaha skimped on that VRM for their premium stage piano (if not flagship?). Is VRM in the Montage M pianos? 

 

Side bar: gigged the YC88 + NSC4 Rig last night, mainly used the YC pianos, but for a few tunes with layers I use the Nord piano because I'm lazy to reprogram everything. Sound guy comes up to me in the break and says 'Man, ditch the Nord, the Yamaha piano sounds way better in the mix' 

[locture]

2 hours ago, Aynsley Green said:

Is VRM in the Montage M pianos? 

 

No. The board itself is excellent but it's such an omission not to include sympathetic string resonance.

 

Nord has a completely different tone - a bit too punchy to my taste. I think both can cut thru a dense mix fairly well but yamaha is more crisp while Nord more of a full sound.

[Aynsley Green]

4 hours ago, locture said:

No. The board itself is excellent but it's such an omission not to include sympathetic string resonance.

 

Nord has a completely different tone - a bit too punchy to my taste. I think both can cut thru a dense mix fairly well but yamaha is more crisp while Nord more of a full sound.

 

Classic Japanese product line design - leave something out so people will upgrade to the next iteration.

 

The Nord pianos sound pretty nice recorded/up close/small speaker, but Yamaha seems to fare better through a PA, I have no idea why. 

[AnotherScott]

18 hours ago, Aynsley Green said:

Classic Japanese product line design - leave something out so people will upgrade to the next iteration.

 

I've never bought into this "conspiracy thinking." I think manufacturers generally include what they think the target audience wants to buy, within the constraints of development time, resources available, cost, etc.  I think their goal is pretty much always to offer what they think is the most sellable version of something they can come up with at the time, within the constraints of development costs, manufacturing costs and desired selling price. (Which also includes looking at what competitive products are offering.)

 

A bit of circumstantial counter-argument to the premise: The number of times a "missing feature" has later been implemented as an available upgrade for an existing model (often for free), meaning it was not "left out" to entice you to buy the next model. (since they ended up providing it for the existing model). The number of times a new iteration actually loses desirable functionality that was in the earlier iteration. The number of times the model that adds the "obviously desired" additional functions never comes. (I'm still waiting for a Yamaha arranger that provides voice editing as Korg's arrangers do, or a Montage series board that includes SA2 voices. A Casio PX5S with an expression pedal input and a PX-560-style touchscreen interface, or a PX-560 with better MIDI controller functionality. A Roland VR09/VR730 that doesn't have, well, all the limitations the VR09/730 still has. Etc. It's been lots of years for these things, I'm not holding my breath.)

 

I'd be curious to hear examples of where people believe this has happened in the past, i.e. where a keyboard was replaced with a new version (with no upgrade available for owners of the earlier version) where they added features that seemed arguably "withheld" from the earlier version, without either raising the price or losing other features. Or even with a price increase. How often does this happen, really? (Especially compared to all the scenarios where it doesn't, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.)

 

 

[TJ Cornish]

20 minutes ago, AnotherScott said:

 

I've never bought into this "conspiracy thinking." I think manufacturers generally include what they think the target audience wants to buy, within the constraints of development time, resources available, cost, etc.  I think their goal is pretty much always to offer what they think is the most sellable version of something they can come up with at the time, within the constraints of development costs, manufacturing costs and desired selling price. (Which also includes looking at what competitive products are offering.)

 

A bit of circumstantial counter-argument to the premise: The number of times a "missing feature" has later been implemented as an available upgrade for an existing model (often for free), meaning it was not "left out" to entice you to buy the next model. (since they ended up providing it for the existing model). The number of times a new iteration actually loses desirable functionality that was in the earlier iteration. The number of times the model that adds the "obviously desired" additional functions never comes. (I'm still waiting for a Yamaha arranger that provides voice editing as Korg's arrangers do, or a Montage series board that includes SA2 voices. A Casio PX5S with an expression pedal input and a PX-560-style touchscreen interface, or a PX-560 with better MIDI controller functionality. A Roland VR09/VR730 that doesn't have, well, all the limitations the VR09/730 still has. Etc. It's been lots of years for these things, I'm not holding my breath.)

 

I'd be curious to hear examples of where people believe this has happened in the past, i.e. where a keyboard was replaced with a new version (with no upgrade available for owners of the earlier version) where they added features that seemed arguably "withheld" from the earlier version, without either raising the price or losing other features. Or even with a price increase. How often does this happen, really? (Especially compared to all the scenarios where doesn't, as mentioned in the previous paragraph.)

 

 

I agree with you, and in fact, think sometimes new models do less than old ones - e.g. the Korg Nautilus being a clear downgrade from the Kronos, the removal of the sequencer from the latest Roland Fantom compared to the previous series (G I think?), removal of some of the workstation features from the Montage compared to the earlier Motif.

 

Stephen Kay - author of KARMA once facetiously said “Features are just coding, and coding is just typing, right?”  

 

We, I think, are at the point where the latest keyboards are so complex that it gets difficult to cram everything into a UI that people want to use and at a price people want to pay for. The result of this is that for every generation of product, the product team tries to figure out what features will sell the most gear and create a product that people can actually learn to use. For example, relatively few people will do a full-blown music production process in a workstation keyboard - virtually everyone uses a software DAW. Yamaha’s answer to this is to give the Montage a basic sequencer with the assumption being that being able to play back a sequence edited and mixed on a DAW and imported into the Montage is good enough for the majority of their customers, and so some functions were cut.

 

These days, I find that I want relatively few big features such as the Montage ESP soft synth thing. I am more hoping for workflow changes that are relatively minor in scope - e.g., increasing the part transpose range in the Montage - currently limited to +/- 3 octaves plus some semitones for no particular reason. I have submitted probably a dozen feature requests on the Yamaha forum for such things; I have no idea if any will ever be implemented. 

 

I learned many years ago to never buy a piece of gear based on promises of future updates. I bought a Roland Fantom in 2021 after rejecting it for the two years it existed prior, before it had all of the features I wanted. After Roland implemented enough stuff to do what I wanted, they earned my business.

 

FWIW, I am pretty confident that all of the keyboard manufacturers watch threads like these in all of the usual places (at least to the level of abuse they can stomach with everyone being critical and overlooking the 10,000 things their product DOES do). I have no doubt that they want to say “yes” to a lot of the things that people want, but are limited by financial constraints and management decisions.

 

Back to the Montage M - I’ve had mine for 10 months now, and while it has a few annoying limitations (probably the way that patterns are parent objects to performances and some limitations with tempo management being the most egregious), it is an unbelievable beast. I played at a funeral today with several songs that needed 8 parts split/layered, scene changes, lots of effects and real-time control. Could I have done the gig with a Kronos? Yes, but I would have had to do a lot more resource management. With the Montage, the fact that there is so much polyphony and literally 40 effects processors plus a really robust control structure (did you know you can use the small screen to name your sliders so you can remember what all the parts do?) meant that I just loaded up a bunch of sounds and went for it. I hope they add the stuff I want that would make my life easier, but even as it is today, it would be very difficult to go back.

[TommyBoy]

I find my Montage M8X pianos to be - stunning.  Running through a pair of Yamaha HS8 monitors they are just incredible. I love the action of the keys as well. I'm an accordionist and play for hours a week on smaller Roland FR-8X keys, or low-travel small wooden keys and the transition to the M8X is welcomed. My last proper piano was the S90ES and somewhere in the middle a Technics Digital Piano so not much to compare to.