Yamaha's "new" Motif / workstation.... anytime soon ????????????

[WastedYears]

Personally, I'd love to be able to get a full fledged motifES, minus the Sampler......I really don't need a sampler.

 

One thing I like about the Triton LE(I just found out about it really) is that though it doesn't come standard with a sampler, you can load sample data to a smart media card, insert it into a bone stock TritonLe, and use them to make your own instruments. If it weren't for that cheesy keybed, I'd have thought that would be a winner.

 

But then the FantomXa, like I said, I don't need the sampler, I'd have much rather the full FantomX soundset, including the UltimateGrand...........Or, the FantomS sounds with the FantomX8 keys, and no Sampler.........OR.......

 

man it'd be cool if we could custom order these things.......at the same(or lower) prices of course.

[aliengroover]

I don't understand what the big fuss is, either. All over the 'Net I'm hearing people bashing Korg's and Yammie's releasings of keyboards obviously aimed at the entry-level/budget workstation market. Roland has theirs out, and Korg's is getting long in the tooth, so when do you guys think it should be released? They aren't meant to be groundbreaking or stellar products, so why the hubbub, bub, because they're not?

Peace

[keynote]

Originally posted by MikeT156:

 

Regarding the Motif ES8,

 

"Now the UI?? Hmmm. The first few weeks I tried to use the sequencer I was pulling what's left of my hair out. But if you work with it long enough, you get use to it."

 

Cheers,

 

Mike T.

You mean if you work with it long enough you get used to pulling your hair out? You must be pert near bald by now partner..

 

Seriously, I couldn't agree with you more about the Motif ES User Interface. It is really complicated and has an extremely high learning curve. IMO you almost need a Master's Degree in Computer Science to get the hang of it.

 

One of the other frustrations with the Motif/ES interface is its small LCD screen. Plus on top of that the OS is very complicated to figure out in my opinion. I think maybe Yamaha made the OS based on an Engineering perspective instead of on a Musician's perspective. OTOH, Roland got it right when they made the Fantom X series of Keyboards. The User Interface is very intuitive and well laid out. Plus the Fantom X has the nice large LCD screen making navigation a lot easier.

 

Now we have another surprise with the just announced MO6 & MO8 Synthesizer Workstations. As someone else mentioned I think Yamaha is indeed wanting to cash in on people buying the MO6 or 8 instead of getting a used Motif which is no benefit to Yamaha per se except maybe in parts or the purchasing of additional PLG cards, etc., for a used Motif. But truly the ideal way for Yammie to make a much bigger profit would be on the sale of the new MO6/8.

 

BUT as you can see from the spec sheet the MO6/8 does NOT have Aftertouch which is a deal breaker for many I would think, including me also.

 

It does have some nice features though, one of them being a Digital Output. But no expansion with PLG cards is rather disappointing. Although having the lighter weight, especially for the MO8 as apposed to a Motif/ES8, is great. Btw, I can't wait for Yamaha to come out with a lightweight 76 key on their new full fledged Flagship Workstation. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 lbs. or thereabouts. It would generate many more sales just for that 'feature' alone. Plus I can't tell you what a hot item it would be if they made the 76 key version with a fully weighted keybed. And on top of that still kept it at around 30 lbs.?!?!

 

SOLD!! I'll take it!

 

I also think that the MO6/8 is a precursor to Yamaha's new Flagship Workstation which may btw be announced at Summer NAMM 2006. PS: I think Winter NAMM 2006 is a little early to announce a new Flagship on the heels of the just announced MO6/8 Workstation. But time will tell.

 

What I'm hoping for in their new Flagship is a LARGE color LCD screen... Finally!! On top of that I think Yamaha will incorporate the new SAV (Super Articulated Voice) technology into it, which is currently on their just released Tyros2 Digital Music Workstation.

 

Another possibility is it will have double the Polyphony of their current Workstation. That would really be a bonus if it did. 256 note Polyphony would give it that much more breathing room before you ever have to worry about note drop outs. Which would be a heavy sigh of relief to many a performer if you know what I mean.

 

Oh well... I have so much more on my wish list but time does not allow me to put it in words at this time.

 

Ciao for now!

[keynote]

Originally posted by Dreamer:

Mike, why is it so important that Yamaha makes an official statement about the Tyros 2 ROM? Are you maybe trying to tell us that you are not even going to consider purchasing a keyboard until you know exactly how much ROM you get in return for your financial investment?

 

Not exactly, but knowing the true compressed amount is nonetheless an important (vital) piece of information I think every customer and potential customer has the right to know. But apparently Yamaha doesn't feel the same way regarding this issue or else they would have posted it within their Spec sheet on their web sites or in the User Manual. Generally speaking more ROM equals better sounds and of course uncompressed ROM usually equals even better sounds yet. The Tyros2' WAV ROM has been compressed from 300Mb to ???. I for one would sure like to know what that ??? is. Especially when I am considering purchasing one.

 

Even if the compressed amount is not that spectacular it is still worth knowing. Otherwise how can a person truly make an 'informed' decision one way or the other? Would you like it if Yamaha happened to neglect mentioning the 'actual' Polyphony amount on any of their Boards? Of course not. And most likely sales would be almost non-existent if they chose to omit that info and with possible scandals as a result. The reason why is that the Company would not be considered trustworthy and people would instead be inclined to purchase from one that is.

 

Each and every category of information on any of their products is important and valuable to the User and should be listed in the spec sheet and or User Manual. To not do so is hindering a potential customer from making an 'informed' decision and also from making an accurate assessment of the product in question.

 

Btw, everything that is hidden shall one day be revealed. It only makes sense to get it out in the open now so people can actually benefit from it. It if turns out that the compressed amount is only a few megabytes more than my current Tyros then I would be even more hesitant to lay down my hard earned cash for a Tyros2. What am I really gaining?? If it is only a few megabytes more then not much except for the SAV voices, some new Styles, and a few other tidbits thrown in as well. Therefore I benefit from knowing that information and I can make a wise and informed decision as a result. Yamaha in my opinion is stifling my decision process by omitting pertinent information regarding one of their products. Maybe they think if they keep people in the dark it would be more beneficial to their bottomline. As I've stated earlier: "What they (WE) don't know can't hurt them (US)" type mentality. Little do they know.

 

But the truth is I won't purchase the Tyros2 if the only available option is the 61 key model. If they decide to make a 76 key version then I would highly consider getting one. And yes,... even though I still don't know the skinny on the 'actual' "compressed" WAV ROM amount.

 

Just having a great action keyboard with 76 keys is my number one priority. Everything else would be icing on the cake; and that goes for the 160Mb or whatever of compressed WAV ROM the Tyros2 actually has.

 

PEACE..

[Ken Hughes]

I wouldn't want a newbie to get the idea that many MB automatically = great sounds. We've all heard megamemory stinkers, and the opposite. More important is the quality of the sample taking and editing, and you can only evaluate these by playing and listening.

[resigned]

Agreed, but Yamaha has made it a point to brag about the size of their wave ROM in their keyboards in the past. On the Motifator website for the Motif ES where it says "Specs" you'll see the phrase "how about a whopping 185 MB wave ROM...". Yamaha gives the wave ROM of the S90 ES as 228MB on their SNinety.com website. So something about Yamaha giving out wave ROM data has changed.

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by keynote:

Not exactly, but knowing the true compressed amount is nonetheless an important (vital) piece of information I think every customer and potential customer has the right to know.

Well, that's just KRAP.

 

I don't give a rat's buttocks about that number. Instead I care about the quality of sounds and the programs/setups available.

 

How they get the quality of sounds and the number of programs/setups is inconsequential to me.

 

Use your ears to make up your mind. Your audience will be using theirs.

 

BTW, when was the last time someone in the audience came up to you after a gig to ask you how much ROM is in your keyboard?

 

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Nordude]

Originally posted by The Pro:

Agreed, but Yamaha has made it a point to brag about the size of their wave ROM in their keyboards in the past.

True. So did Roland, BTW, especially when counting the WAV ROM of a maximally SRX expanded instrument. "Over 1GB..." etc etc

 

OTOH, Yamaha has done a nice job in the Motif/ES: good quality sounds. So that MO6 definitely is on my wish list.

[Markyboard]

I think Yamaha should publish the numbers of gates used in their ASICs. You can have all the MB of wave ROM you want but it's useless if the consuumer can't evaluate whether the synth engine has the balls to process those waves. This hidden spec must be reavealed and the conspiracy ended here and now.

[Stephen Fortner]

Orignally posted by GovernmentCheck:

So, I could put the SRX-11 into the Xa, hook it up to an M-audio Pro88, and have a workingman's FantomX8?? cool.

Essentially, yes.

 

Originally posted by The Pro:

Why would you want to review something you've reviewed before anyway?

To add to what Ken said, there's an important sense in which we have not, in fact, reviewed this product before. It's desgined to a different price point, and therefore will get the attention of potential customers who might not ever look at anything with a street price in the higher $2K - $3K range, and so, may well have not read reviews of the Motif ES, Fantom X, or Triton Studio. Conversely, those with higher budgets are likely not to read a review of a "lite version" anything.

 

Also, someone somewhere comes into a position to buy their first pro keyboard with every second that passes. This may be the point at which they develop an interest in Keyboard magazine, so new reviews of things derived from earlier products are in fact their introduction to the whole prodcut line, or even the idea of a workstation itself. It's a balancing act to appeal to such readers at the same time as people with a more encyclopedic knowledge about what we've reviewed and what manufacturers have made in the past.

[ITGITC]

Originally posted by Markyboard:

I think Yamaha should publish the numbers of gates used in their ASICs. You can have all the MB of wave ROM you want but it's useless if the consuumer can't evaluate whether the synth engine has the balls to process those waves. This hidden spec must be reavealed and the conspiracy ended here and now.

EggFreakinZactly!!

 

Ummmm, I apologize for my rant (above).

 

I'd blame it on constipation. But I'm ALWAYS constipated.

[Sven Golly]

Originally posted by Is There Gas in the Car?:

Ummmm, I apologize for my rant (above).

Please don't. Apologize, that is. You were entirely justified, IMO, and it was refreshing to read it amidst a sea of whining, bitching and moaning from others.

 

On the other hand, those posts have given me more laughs than I've gotten from this forum in a long time...

 

Oh well. Off to make music now. I hope that's true for most of you reading this.

 

Cheers,

SG

[Ken Hughes]

Originally posted by Markyboard:

I think Yamaha should publish the numbers of gates used in their ASICs. You can have all the MB of wave ROM you want but it's useless if the consuumer can't evaluate whether the synth engine has the balls to process those waves. This hidden spec must be reavealed and the conspiracy ended here and now.

You're right. Just the other day I was saying exactly this to Ernie. The average consumer needs to know this vital detail.

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Ken Hughes:

More people pay for Keyboard than any other music-tech magazine. Period.

Source?

[Markyboard]

Originally posted by Jeebus ®:

Originally posted by Ken Hughes:

More people pay for Keyboard than any other music-tech magazine. Period.

Source?

An employee of Boarder's Books chasing a shoplifter stealing a box full of Recording, Mix and and Sound On Sound magazines?

[Ken Hughes]

The Magazine Publishers Association, and independent entity.

[Jeebus]

-

[resigned]

You guys have raised a great question:

 

What should be base our keyboard comparisons on? Hold the thing about hearing and playing it for a moment since that's often the last thing some of us get to do.

 

Why shouldn't we compare memory and processors in a similar manner as computers and many other tech devices do? Manufacturer's marketing begs us compare their specs at times and then not on others. What else are specs for? If you assume for a moment that equal amounts of effort, dedication and experience went into the programming and/or sampling process of the instrument and similar resources will go into the instrument's support, then we should be able to compare hardware for hardware with keyboards. Some keyboards have very obvious computer-like hardware specs while others don't. For that matter, some of us are making choices between keyboards and computers and the lines are blurring more every year. And yes, anything that makes that kind of hardware comparison more vague tends to make us more suspicious... we've all been misled by hype before.

 

Many of us don't have access to these keyboards so we often make purchase choices based on research, demos and personal opinions. Then we rely on the return policy and goodwill of online retailers. I'm probably not the only person to have bought a musical product sight unseen. You can't blame us for wanting to know as much as possible beforehand... that's why we're here in part.

 

If you guys are going to knock the notion of using wave ROM or gates or whatever to compare keyboards, it's up to you to provide something more substantial. I mean that in the nicest of ways of course.

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Ken Hughes:

The Magazine Publishers Association, and independent entity.

Did the MPA come up with that exact claim, or is it your interpretation of their statistics?

 

It seems like a pretty bold statement to make. Sound on Sound certainly sells very well both here and overseas, not to mention others. What magazines are included in the category "music tech"?

 

Are Electronic Musician, Future Music, SOS included?

[Ken Hughes]

Originally posted by Jeebus ®:

It seems like a pretty bold statement to make. Sound on Sound certainly sells very well both here and overseas, not to mention others. What magazines are and are not included in the category "music tech"?

 

Are Electronic Musician, Future Music, SOS included?

My mistake. Its the BPA, not the MPA. Their website is at bpaww.com. They are an independent auditor that audits all magazines as well as other media. It's a bold statement, you're right. Luckily, based on the latest BPA audits, it's also true. Why would I lie? Do I look that stupid?

 

I didnt quote your question about interpretation. The BPA publishes the numbers of paid subscribers and newsstand buyers rather plainly. Theres no books-cooking, data-fudging, looking at the page sideways, or arithmancy going on to make the statement true from a certain point of view. The BPA numbers are straightforward enough that theres no interpretation about it. More people pay for Keyboard than any other music-tech magazine. Period. That includes all the mags in the music-tech space.

 

Sorry, this is way off topic for this thread. Now back to Yamaha synths.

[Ken Hughes]

By The Pro: If you guys are going to knock the notion of using wave ROM or gates or whatever to compare keyboards, it's up to you to provide something more substantial.

 

Like actually playing the thing and making real music with it at gigs and in the studio?

[aliengroover]

I personally don't care two shakes of a leg about specs. They are just after the last thing on my list when it comes to making a decision about gear. In every review I read, I shoot to the "in use" and "conclusion" sections first, 'cause that's all that matters. The amount of wave ROM is really way down the list of the specs category, for me. How it sounds is ALL that matters when it comes to that. The MOTIF sounded good when it was just 85MB, or whatever it was. The Fantom X has "just" 128MB, IIRC, and that is my favorite sounding workstation/keyboard out right now.

 

Tell me if it sounds good, if it's easy to use and get around on, and somewhere in a box tell me how much sample RAM I can cram in there and what kind of connectivity it has. Also, if it's expandable in any way. That's what I want to know. Basically, give me a reason to hunt it down if the local Mega Music Mart doesn't have it.

Peace

[resigned]

Originally posted by Ken Hughes:

By The Pro: If you guys are going to knock the notion of using wave ROM or gates or whatever to compare keyboards, it's up to you to provide something more substantial.

 

Like actually playing the thing and making real music with it at gigs and in the studio?

What the heck is it with you anyway Ken? Pardon my audacity here... maybe I am one of those "average consumers" or "jaded, tech-savy" people or whatever else you want to refer to your magazine's readers and forum participants as, and apparently you don't think we need or deserve to know the specs of the instruments we buy, but you can respect my questions enough to provide more than one glib sentence if you're going to bother to reply at all. All you are doing is showing contempt for people with the drive to know more and/or how incapable you are of discussing the issue, I can't decide which.

 

And for those people who don't care about specs - does that mean your indifference should apply to everyone? Why is that the people who "don't care about the specs" are the first to chime in when someone asks a question about specs?

 

I asked a valid and ernest question about comparing hardware specifications of keyboard instruments. No Ken, listening to someone gush over their experiences on stage or in the studio is not enough. When I buy a car, it isn't enough to know how much other people enjoy driving it - I want to know what's under the hood. If you can't relate to that then you sure are misplaced as "Technical Editor, Keyboard Magazine".

[dgrennan]

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that somone like Ken, who we are so lucky to have access to deserves a lot more respect than that.

[aliengroover]

Originally posted by The Pro:

And for those people who don't care about specs - does that mean your indifference should apply to everyone? Why is that the people who "don't care about the specs" are the first to chime in when someone asks a question about specs?

 

I asked a valid and ernest question about comparing hardware specifications of keyboard instruments. No Ken, listening to someone gush over their experiences on stage or in the studio is not enough. When I buy a car, it isn't enough to know how much other people enjoy driving it - I want to know what's under the hood. If you can't relate to that then you sure are misplaced as "Technical Editor, Keyboard Magazine".

No, our indifference doesn't apply to everyone. At least mine doesn't. Comparing specs in a review shouldn't concern ANYONE for one simple, glaring reason: you can easily do that on your own. They nicely put it all in a neat little box, as well as opening up the review by going over the specs. But again I ask, what does that have to do how the thing sounds and if it doesn't get in the way of the process of making and performing music? The MOTIF ES's specs absolutely KILL the Fantom X's, but the X's user interface is light years ahead of the ES AND it sounds great. The Fusion's specs crap all over the other workstations, but it doesn't sound near as good as the others, and it isn't as user friendly. I could go on and on with a thousand items. If you want to buy anything based on specs rather than if it actually works, then go ahead and knock yourself out. I prefer not to. And in today's spec-happy society, I'm probably in the minority.

Peace

[resigned]

Originally posted by aliengroover:

Originally posted by The Pro:

And for those people who don't care about specs - does that mean your indifference should apply to everyone?

No, our indifference doesn't apply to everyone. At least mine doesn't. Comparing specs in a review shouldn't concern ANYONE for one simple, glaring reason: you can easily do that on your own. They nicely put it all in a neat little box, as well as opening up the review by going over the specs. But again I ask, what does that have to do how the thing sounds and if it doesn't get in the way of the process of making and performing music? The MOTIF ES's specs absolutely KILL the Fantom X's, but the X's user interface is light years ahead of the ES AND it sounds great. The Fusion's specs crap all over the other workstations, but it doesn't sound near as good as the others, and it isn't as user friendly. I could go on and on with a thousand items. If you want to buy anything based on specs rather than if it actually works, then go ahead and knock yourself out. I prefer not to. And in today's spec-happy society, I'm probably in the minority.

Peace

Maybe you just haven't kept up with the entire conversation since everything you said is perfectly valid. In a change from their previous marketing, Yamaha was not telling us what the wave ROM specs of their new Tyros 2 arranger was, though the information does seem to be coming out from unofficial sources as 300MB. That sparked some comments about how much information "average consumers" like us needed to know about the keyboards we buy, or whether specs matter at all. I think it's one of many factors, but not a lesser one. In fact, I would enjoy knowing more about the technical aspects of my instruments and how they compare - maybe I'm the one in the minority on that.

 

If you are refering to Keyboard Magazine reviews as guides, let me point out something - I was critical of Stephen Fortner's review of the Roland G70 arranger because some critical features were never mentioned. Stephen replied that his review had been edited and what finally made press was less than he'd meant it to be. So information, even vital information for some of us, doesn't always make it into those reviews because print space is always at a premium.

 

If given the choice between less information so my poor unworthy brain doesn't suffer from overload or more information than I truly can digest, I would choose the latter and somehow make the best of it.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

I don't think it's necessary to take sides on the issue of whether specs are useful - of course they are. So are actual user impressions about sound and usability. IT'S ALL GOOD! Give me all the technical details I can stand. Also give me useability reviews, road tests, all of it, the more the better. Don't dumb it down, smart it up! And after reading it all, I still won't trust a word of it until I go out and evaluate it with my own ears, hands, and brain. But I still want to read all that technical, and non-technical stuff.

 

Um, what's the original topic again?

[RABid]

So, can we get an IP match and see who created a new account just to drag this up again?

[BOPBEEPER]

Well I am from Oxford but it wernt me.Isn't there an Oxford in the USA? There is one in Scotland - its just a village cos it supprised me when I drove through it a while back.

 

Yeah who is this freaky dood.