Montage vs Fantom - workflow comparison video

[anotherscott]

I am not questioning that the Montage/MODX has better presets for acoustic instruments than the Fantom. However, I find statements like "Zen-Core is less capable when it comes to reproducing acoustic instruments" and "the AWM2 architecture is inherently more capable than ZC" rather strange.

Technically, it would be possible to create multi-zone instruments on the Fantom. Multi-part instruments are inconvenient on the Montage/MODX, and they would be inconvenient on the Fantom.

But they *exist* on Montage. There is, for example, that 18 element piano I mentioned on the Montage, whereas a ZC piano is limited to 4 partials. Okay, it may be theoretically possible to create an 18 partial piano by ganging up 5 ZC parts, but the Fantom architecture would have no mechanism by which to bring a 5-part sound into a Scene, or to identify/locate such a sound in the first place, short of a user's ability to be aware of and locate each of the 5 parts individually. (Plus, of course, Roland supplies no such sounds, so you'd have to create the samples yourself!) And now with the Montage M, as I understand it, even a single-part sound could contain all those elements.

Maybe it's just a matter of how you define "inherently", i.e. how many hoops you're willing to go through to try to shoehorn a functionality into an architecture that is not factory-designed for it. But for all practical purposes, an AWM2 sound can have a greater variety of samples (velocity-switched, layered, switch-invoked, whatever) than a ZC sound. And I believe there is more element-by-element processing/manipulation available as well, compared to what you can do with a partial, no?

Looking specifically at single-part piano-like tones: 8 elements is not really more than 4 partials, because AWM2 needs to duplicate all elements to mimic the damper-free notes.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on this? Perhaps by comparing a given single-part Yamaha piano sound to a Roland equivalent?

Let me finish with this thought: How do the acoustic drums compare? How many elements does AWM2 use for drum kits? And how many partials does Zen-Core use for them?

I can't answer this, I usually play with a drummer.

[mx49]

There is, for example, that 18 element piano I mentioned on the Montage.

It also shows how weird these multi-part pianos are. With the CFX Concert, depending on which notes you play, between 1 and 3 damper resonance effects are sounding, all tracking different pitches. The key-off effect also sounds different in comparison to all single-part pianos. AIUI, the CFX Concert is a single-part piano on the Montage M. I assume that both damper resonance and key-off sound very different on the Montage M.

And I believe there is more element-by-element processing/manipulation available as well, compared to what you can do with a partial, no?

Do you mean whether a AWM2 partial has more features than a Zen-Core partial? I think it is the other way around. First, Zen-Core partials support VA oscillators. There are also other features that simply do not exist in AWM2, like routable envelopes, routable LFOs, retriggerable envelopes, and no-sustain envelopes. On the other hand, beyond the assignable switches in XA control, I can not think of a lot of functionality that exists in AWM2 and not in Zen-Core.

Looking specifically at single-part piano-like tones: 8 elements is not really more than 4 partials, because AWM2 needs to duplicate all elements to mimic the damper-free notes.

Interesting. Can you elaborate on this? Perhaps by comparing a given single-part Yamaha piano sound to a Roland equivalent?

Most AWM2 piano tones since the Motif XS look similar: They contain a split around F6, with almost identical elements on the left and right side of the split (including the same waveforms). The main difference is that the element on the right use a longer release to mimic damper free notes. Often, the right side also merges 2 elements in comparison to the left side, to better fit into the available elements/part. For example, the CFX Concert contains 9 elements for the left side, and almost identical 8 elements for the right side. If they would have used 9 elements for the right side, then they would have needed 5 parts.

This split is not necessary in Zen-Core. On the Fantom, there are typically 3 or 4 partials (depending on whether there is a key-off partial), all covering the while key range. For the damper free notes, there is an option in the partial itself.

[anotherscott]

And I believe there is more element-by-element processing/manipulation available as well, compared to what you can do with a partial, no?

Do you mean whether a AWM2 partial has more features than a Zen-Core partial? I think it is the other way around. First, Zen-Core partials support VA oscillators.

I was only talking about comparing their "rompler" aspects, i.e. sample-based sounds, as you would use for acoustic instrument emulations (which is where this conversation started). Of course Roland has the whole VA emulation advantage over Montage/MODX (except for Montage M which adds VA emulation as well).

There are also other features that simply do not exist in AWM2, like routable envelopes, routable LFOs, retriggerable envelopes, and no-sustain envelopes. On the other hand, beyond the assignable switches in XA control, I can not think of a lot of functionality that exists in AWM2 and not in Zen-Core.

What I was thinking of is that each AWM2 element has available its own filter settings, its own envelopes, its own LFO settings, its own EQ... I didn't think ZC's partials offered all that, but maybe I'm wrong there...?

[mx49]

Of course Roland has the whole VA emulation advantage over Montage/MODX (except for Montage M which adds VA emulation as well).

Except that the AN-X engine is rather basic and offers only a small number of hard-wired modulation options.

What I was thinking of is that each AWM2 element has available its own filter settings, its own envelopes, its own LFO settings, its own EQ... I didn't think ZC's partials offered all that, but maybe I'm wrong there...?

Similar to AWM2 elements, each Z-Core partial has a filter, 3 envelopes, 2 LFOs, 3-band EQ. Overall, a Z-Core partial has about 270 parameters in comparison to 140 parameters for an AWM2 element. The numbers are not so important, because the two engines have different approaches. However, I would argue that a Z-Core partial offers more than an AWM2 element.

For reproducing acoustic instruments, I can not think of any notable features of the AWM2 engine (beyond the number of elements, the XA legato option, and the XA assignable switch options for articulations). I think that the difference comes from the quality of samples, and from the programming of the tones.

[anotherscott]

I've now had a chance to watch the video, very nice! Though I have a few other points that I wanted to note...

At about 2:50 - I agree that it can be irritating to find you can't load a Fantom sound because it could only be used on a zone that is already occupied with another sound. But moreover, this is exacerbated by the fact that (unlike on a Montage) you cannot move or copy sounds from one zone to another, as you might want to in order to free up that "special" zone for that additional sound (or even just to have the desired fader control the desired sound!). So for example, if you want to take your zone 2 sound and put it in zone 3 so you can bring a VTW sound into that Scene, you'll have to manually recreate the contents of zone 2 from scratch in zone 3 (bring in the tone, and again set any zone parameters you may have used... key range, volume, octave, panning, reverb etc.).

A similar irritation occurs if you are setting up a Scene, and realize you'd like to use a zone that you had used in another Scene. Again, you'll find no ability to copy/paste or save/load or import a zone from one Scene to another (whereas Montage does permit this). I find this particularly annoying when using external sounds over MIDI. If you want to use the same external sound you used in another Scene, you have to reconfigure it from scratch (MIDI channel, Program Change, MSB, LSB...). On the Yamaha, you can re-use an external sound just as easily as you can re-use an internal one. The Fantom workaround is to load the old Scene that has the external sound you want *first*, and then create the rest of your Scene. But that only works if (a) you know in advance you're going to want that external sound in this Scene you're about to create, (b) you want it in the same zone location again, and (b) you only want one such sound in the Scene (i.e. you can't then bring in other sounds from other Scenes).

Though at around 5:30, I don't see your Fantom criticism concerning how Tones have to be saved apart from the Scenes as being as much of an issue as you seem to. Yes, you need to save the edited Tone as its own entity (an extra step), and you have to be aware of the differentiation between over-writing an earlier version of a user Tone (i.e. at the same location) vs. saving your modified sound as an entirely new Tone (in a new location). And there's the variable that edited factory tones can only be saved as new tones, whereas edited user tones can either be saved as new tones or can be over-written by new versions. But to me, there are no problems here that are not easily manageable/avoidable, the procedures required are not hard to remember once you know/understand them, and the system even offers you reminders (i.e. if you try to save a Scene and have forgotten to first save the edited Tone). And it does give you then the choice of whether a version of a user sound should be Scene-specific or global to the use of that sound (which, as you point out, is an option you don't have on the Montage, where if you wanted to alter a given sound for all your existing uses of it, you'd have to manually update each occurrence). Between the "extra steps" (which are not difficult) vs, "extra flexibility" (of a type that not all users will need), I think this is probably about a draw overall, and considering all the other (IMO) more notable differences between the boards, wouldn't be something that I would see as really being such a significant difference between the boards

At about 10:50, you talk about limitations of Fantom's Scene pages compared to Montage's Live Set pages... but Fantom's equivalent to Live Set is actually a different screen entirely, it's Scene Chain, that's what Live Set pages are best compared to. Montage Live Sets and Fantom Scene Chains are the screens you use to re-arrange "pointers" to sounds a (or sound combinations) that actually exist elsewhere. There, you can indeed include the same sound multiple times without making more copies of the sound (to specifically address a complaint you had about the Fantom).

Unless I missed it, there was no mention of the fact that the Montage permits two independent effects per part, Fantom only has one.