Korg Forums

sani wrote:

Chriskk wrote:

Yamaha have milked, beaten, whipped, abused, and recycled AWM2 more times than I care to even bother complimenting at this stage.

Yamaha could have created a new acronym in every 4 years but they didn't (Maybe their marketing guys are not too creative).

AI --> AI2 --> ACCESS --> HI --> EDS --> HD1

What are the major differences except that the AI & AI2 didn't even have resonant filters?

This nails it absolutely.
I'm wondering how Sharp still insist on those meaningless acronyms (saying that because a couple of years ago we had the same discussion).
Fact is that Yamaha didn't change the name and Korg does it with almost every new workstation model. What's behind is the same basic structure from the M1 which is expanded with new features and possibilities thru the years up to the Kronos. I don't mean it in a bad way, and it absolutely doesn't mean that a Kronos is a M1 with a few new parameters. It's just that nobody seriously cares how a company calls their sample based synthesis method. What counts is how it sounds and what you can do with the sound in that synthesis. And there I don't see Yamaha lagging behind. Korg excels in one aspect while Yamaha does in another one. At the end they are somewhere equal.

Are you NUTZ?

sani wrote: And as somebody mentioned, the Kurzweil synthesis is probably one of the oldest ones, it is VAST and even that one on the K2600 (somewhere from 1998) is lightyears ahead compared to any current Yamaha/Roland/Korg workstation synthesis method.

Fans of VAST should look at the MOD-7, which does many of the same things and is in various ways more powerful. You may be surprised.

Kontrol49 wrote:
In the workstation sense probably from a very similar PCM with crossover points from every manufacturer and every generation of Rompler,all that seems to change is the Quality of the samples and the names they give the synthesis,if anything it seems the polyphony and Effects block that seem to be enhanced with every generation.

<snip>

no matter what your brand preference is,most of us who have been brand loyal with a synth maker buying workstations at each generation have essentially been buying the same machine over and over again.

For ASIC-based Korg workstations, the changes in the synthesis method name indicate a new generation of synthesis chips. Often there have been significant differences beyond polyphony and effects. Some of these will show up on a list of features (such as the M3 and HD-1's multimode resonant filters, drive/low boost, and per-voice EQ); others, such as those discussed below, will show up when you listen.

Among the many different manufacturers and individual products, both hardware and software, there will be differences in the objective quality of the underlying algorithms. For instance, the quality of sample playback interpolation can vary significantly; this affects the basic sound of the sample playback whenever a sample is played back at anything other than its original pitch and sample rate. Filter quality also varies; for instance, some filters can resonate almost all the way to the Nyquist frequency, while others won't resonate past 1/3 of Nyquist. Modulation signals may be smooth and fast, or not. And so on.

Hope this helps,

Dan

Korg and Yamaha have very different philosophies. We bash Yamaha because we don't understand their philosophy--and vice versa.

Yamaha intends to build the Motif into a timeless classic that will endure...much like their line of acoustic pianos. The incremental upgrades, the same engines and sounds, inter-compatibility are all part of this strategy. When you buy a new Yamaha grand, you expect it to feel and sound like your old Yamaha grand...and it does. It builds loyalty and avoids alienating customers when new models come out. It's also much cheaper and safer for Yamaha in terms of R&D/production cost and thus the future of the company does not rest on the success of the latest flagship. Customers can have the confidence that Yamaha will always be around to support their products. There is also little pressure to upgrade to the latest and greatest.

Korg's philosophy on the other hand is focused on developing the most awesome product at the present time. Each of their workstation products tends to be a leap forward in sound and capability, with little continuity or compatibility with past models. Consequently there is a lot of pressure on its customer base to upgrade to the latest and greatest since that is where the company's support and attention are focused. It's also risky for the company because every new generation requires significant R&D and production cost and product success is tied closely to company success.

So, two very different philosophies. Korg = greatest most awesome product in the market but only if you have the latest; Yamaha = enduring classic no matter where in the product line you buy. Both are pretty compelling.

madbeatzyo111 wrote: So, two very different philosophies. Korg = greatest most awesome product in the market but only if you have the latest; Yamaha = enduring classic no matter where in the product line you buy. Both are pretty compelling.

But does this mean that after buying a Yamaha, you don't have to buy one again for the next 10-20 years because they are more or less alike? Luckily it's not that black/white otherwise there would be not really progress in the synth market.

michelkeijzers wrote:

madbeatzyo111 wrote: So, two very different philosophies. Korg = greatest most awesome product in the market but only if you have the latest; Yamaha = enduring classic no matter where in the product line you buy. Both are pretty compelling.

But does this mean that after buying a Yamaha, you don't have to buy one again for the next 10-20 years because they are more or less alike? Luckily it's not that black/white otherwise there would be not really progress in the synth market.

If you bought an acoustic grand, how many years before you buy another one? My point is that Yamaha thinks of their Motif line like their acoustic instrument line--real musical instruments designed to endure, rather than products that are expected to be used for a few years and then dumped in favor of the next new thing.

As for progress and innovation, well that's why there's a market for Korg (and Roland).

madbeatzyo111 wrote:My point is that Yamaha thinks of their Motif line like their acoustic instrument line--real musical instruments designed to endure, rather than products that are expected to be used for a few years and then dumped in favor of the next new thing.

Believe me, you're wrong on that one. Yamaha is a company and wants to make money. They make money by selling their products. There was even a trade-in action where you changed your motif es for the xs. You can't compare keyboards to real grand pianos. It's not really the same market wise.

danatkorg wrote:

sani wrote: And as somebody mentioned, the Kurzweil synthesis is probably one of the oldest ones, it is VAST and even that one on the K2600 (somewhere from 1998) is lightyears ahead compared to any current Yamaha/Roland/Korg workstation synthesis method.

Fans of VAST should look at the MOD-7, which does many of the same things and is in various ways more powerful. You may be surprised.

Perhaps they're similar, but they're definitely not in the same vein, to each their own. Can I use MS-20 or Polysix or AL-1 filters in MOD-7? No. Can I use MORE than 6 operators? No. Can I make any sample PWM-able? I duuno, perhaps through some waveshaping function of MOD-7 (would like to know about it if it's there), but I think that's one thing that Kurzweil can do when others cannot.

BasariStudios wrote:

sani wrote:

Chriskk wrote: Yamaha could have created a new acronym in every 4 years but they didn't (Maybe their marketing guys are not too creative).

AI --> AI2 --> ACCESS --> HI --> EDS --> HD1

What are the major differences except that the AI & AI2 didn't even have resonant filters?

This nails it absolutely.
I'm wondering how Sharp still insist on those meaningless acronyms (saying that because a couple of years ago we had the same discussion).
Fact is that Yamaha didn't change the name and Korg does it with almost every new workstation model. What's behind is the same basic structure from the M1 which is expanded with new features and possibilities thru the years up to the Kronos. I don't mean it in a bad way, and it absolutely doesn't mean that a Kronos is a M1 with a few new parameters. It's just that nobody seriously cares how a company calls their sample based synthesis method. What counts is how it sounds and what you can do with the sound in that synthesis. And there I don't see Yamaha lagging behind. Korg excels in one aspect while Yamaha does in another one. At the end they are somewhere equal.

Are you NUTZ?

Actually he is CORRECT.

sani wrote:

madbeatzyo111 wrote:My point is that Yamaha thinks of their Motif line like their acoustic instrument line--real musical instruments designed to endure, rather than products that are expected to be used for a few years and then dumped in favor of the next new thing.

Believe me, you're wrong on that one. Yamaha is a company and wants to make money. They make money by selling their products. There was even a trade-in action where you changed your motif es for the xs. You can't compare keyboards to real grand pianos. It's not really the same market wise.

There are quite a few Japanese companies that lose money on certain divisions, but subsidize that loss with other more profitable divisions. I believe Yamaha is one of those companies. Why would they do such a thing? Because the execs really believe in and are passionate about that particular product line, and will continue to develop and produce it even at a loss. Of course they will encourage people to buy, but it's not a life or death thing for them.

And I think you can most definitely compare keyboards to acoustic piano. First, in the upright range, the prices are very comparable (USD3000-4000). Second, sales of digital pianos/keyboards have exceeded that of acoustic pianos for many years now. I don't think it's surprising that Yamaha would like to establish the Motif series as a classic much in the way of the U series uprights.

But if you work for Yamaha and know better, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Let me start with this:

madbeatzyo111 wrote:But if you work for Yamaha and know better, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Good one!
Disagreeing with you on economical views doesn't mean that I work for this or that company. I don't defend yamaha particularly here but what I consider as a general business model.

madbeatzyo111 wrote:There are quite a few Japanese companies that lose money on certain divisions, but subsidize that loss with other more profitable divisions. I believe Yamaha is one of those companies. Why would they do such a thing? Because the execs really believe in and are passionate about that particular product line, and will continue to develop and produce it even at a loss. Of course they will encourage people to buy, but it's not a life or death thing for them.

I believe that every company tries to make money in the first place. If they intentionally accept to loose money, it's because they believe or intend to get it back in some other way. For example, Sony makes loss on the Playstation, but counts on the money they'll get from the games sale. But I don't believe that Yamaha would constantly accept a loss of money on a certain model, just for some image reasons.

madbeatzyo111 wrote:I don't think it's surprising that Yamaha would like to establish the Motif series as a classic much in the way of the U series uprights.

I don't see any special sign that yamaha tries to establish anything special with the motif. They release new versions in the same time frame as others do. They are made from the same materials as other keyboards and they have some good and some less good features on it. Just as you can say for any other keyboard. I'm sure that yamaha wants the Motif to be considered as a high quality instrument, but I don't see anything beyond that. There are 4 motif versions in a 10 years time frame. Releasing 4 versions doesn't look to me like they try to create a classic here. And no, I still wouldn't compare that with pianos. At least not with grand pianos. They are much much more expensive and you usually don't buy a new one every 3 or 5 years.

EvilDragon wrote:

danatkorg wrote:

sani wrote: And as somebody mentioned, the Kurzweil synthesis is probably one of the oldest ones, it is VAST and even that one on the K2600 (somewhere from 1998) is lightyears ahead compared to any current Yamaha/Roland/Korg workstation synthesis method.

Fans of VAST should look at the MOD-7, which does many of the same things and is in various ways more powerful. You may be surprised.

Perhaps they're similar, but they're definitely not in the same vein, to each their own. Can I use MS-20 or Polysix or AL-1 filters in MOD-7? No. Can I use MORE than 6 operators? No. Can I make any sample PWM-able? I duuno, perhaps through some waveshaping function of MOD-7 (would like to know about it if it's there), but I think that's one thing that Kurzweil can do when others cannot.

The similarities run pretty deep. The basic features of "VAST" are configurability, waveshaping, ring mod, filtering, and (with some hoops) FM. Those also happen to be the main features of the MOD-7, which is why I think that Kurzweil fans may enjoy it.

In re your specific comments: As far as I know, you can't use MS-20 or Polysix filters on Kurzweil synths at all. You most certainly can use the AL-1 filters in the MOD-7, since the ones in the MOD-7 are identical - and these filters can do things that the ones in VAST can't, though the opposite is also true.

You also can use more than 6 operators, naturally, by layering (and that's what I think you'd do with more than 6; it's not clear to me that there are many applications for a string of more than 6 operators in a single FM chain). Any comparison based on number of available oscillators would have to include a comparison of power in general; as posted previously, a basic mockup of the complete MOD-7 in the latest Kurzweil models would leave you with only 8 voices and still not offer all of the MOD-7's capabilities.

- Dan

Hi Dan,
just to clear some things up. I didn't mean just the pure synthesis and how a sound is created while mentioning Kurzweil. I was meaning the whole concept, especially how controllers are implemented and what they can do and also the midi master functions. It doens't really belong to what we understand under the VAST term, but that is what was on my mind when I said that it's still lightyears ahead.

sani wrote:Let me start with this:

madbeatzyo111 wrote:But if you work for Yamaha and know better, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Good one!
Disagreeing with you on economical views doesn't mean that I work for this or that company. I don't defend yamaha particularly here but what I consider as a general business model.

I only added that because I thought from the way you said "Believe me..." earlier that you may have inside knowledge of the way Yamaha Corp actually works. Sorry, but you sounded pretty convincing

sani wrote:
I believe that every company tries to make money in the first place. If they intentionally accept to loose money, it's because they believe or intend to get it back in some other way. For example, Sony makes loss on the Playstation, but counts on the money they'll get from the games sale. But I don't believe that Yamaha would constantly accept a loss of money on a certain model, just for some image reasons.

It can and does happen all the time. There are many reasons why companies do this. One (cynical) possibility is that Yamaha may wish to put pressure on smaller companies like Korg by taking away some of their market share. If they manage to take away enough, Korg could be forced to go under or sell itself to Yamaha. However, I get the impression it is exactly an image they are paying for--ie brand prestige. By staying in the workstation market (even if it may be at a loss), Yamaha firmly establishes a foothold across all areas of the music making world. When shopping for anything musically related, Yamaha will be the go to brand. This more than makes up for any loss in a single product line.

sani wrote:
I don't see any special sign that yamaha tries to establish anything special with the motif. They release new versions in the same time frame as others do. They are made from the same materials as other keyboards and they have some good and some less good features on it. Just as you can say for any other keyboard. I'm sure that yamaha wants the Motif to be considered as a high quality instrument, but I don't see anything beyond that. There are 4 motif versions in a 10 years time frame. Releasing 4 versions doesn't look to me like they try to create a classic here. And no, I still wouldn't compare that with pianos. At least not with grand pianos. They are much much more expensive and you usually don't buy a new one every 3 or 5 years.

One big hint is that they've kept the name Motif since 2001. It's not a lack of imagination; it's part of this strategy. And I'm not arguing that workstations are better or worse than acoustic pianos; all I'm saying is that Yamaha has taken the same approach to developing and marketing the Motif as they have with their acoustic pianos. This is because they see them both as enduring bona fide musical instruments.

I highly doubt that the Motif series has been a loss leader for Yamaha, though I have no easy way to confirm that. I also don't think they would apply such a strategy across divisions, e.g. selling Motif's at a loss to stimulate sales on dirt bikes, pianos or even PSRs.