Re: Things Fusion does better than the ES

One of the earlier replys mentioned the Yamaha EX5 as ahead of the pack with on board sound synthesis types.  That is correct, but the limitations of such advanced software and programming is why we have plug-in boards today.

The EX5/7 suffered from tremendous timing slop from trying to do too many things at once.  All the AN, VL, and FDSP synth technolgy was onboard and not added via a plug in board like we have today.  You had to choose which engine and voices to use as the machine could only handle so much.  Plugging in a new expansion synthesizer board is so much better than what the EX5/7 had.  Groove quantizing was difficult and/or impossible do to the complexity of the synthesis power.  Timing response to played onboard sounds lacked.  Their were amazing features to be offered, but painful reality as to what could be accomplished.

SCSI load time was just plain awful.  No misprint here.  It took almost a half an hour to load a 64MB bank.  The sampler was not a full fledged sampler by industry standards.  Yamaha didn’t even call it a sampler - it had very little DSP and sample editing options.  It couldn’t sample at a lower rate than 44.1kHz.  All this was weird considering the amazing A3000 sampler had just come out and not in the least bit utilized in the design of the EX5/7 series.  (Well, okay, some of the effects were from the A-series.)

The EX5/7 as synthesizer was ground breaking.  The EX5/7 as a workstation was a mess.  Yamaha realized that it had a great thing but with some limitations - which is why the amazing Motif series exists.  The modular synthesis plug in program is the remedy to the problems that existed in 1998 for the EX5/7.  By plugging in external cards with additional synthesis engines the power potential could fully be reached.

We don’t need another EX5/7 mess as a workstation.  I will gladly take a Motif Studio with an improved/redisigned user interface (larger LCD) and some AW1600 features.  (CD drive.) A competitive feature for Roland’s “Skip Back Sampling”, etc.  Please Yamaha - you have amazing synthesizer technology and development - just don’t try and cram it into one workstation like you did with the EX5/7 and have a mess!!!

Just my $.02 worth - off the soapbox. 

Best,
Andrew

Re: Things Fusion does better than the ES

Plugging in a new expansion synthesizer board is so much better than what the EX5/7 had ...  amazing features to be offered, but painful reality as to what could be accomplished ... We don’t need another EX5/7 mess as a workstation

Considering that Yamaha had 6 more years to improve the software aspect, I think they are be perfectly able to implement multiple synth engines the right way, now that Alesis and Korg have already done it. The technology moves on and what have been incredible new opportunities in 1998 is now considered very basic level (remember the good old Moore law?)

I recall how 1998 E-Mu 10K, used in SoundBlaster Live! and Emulator Ultra line, was a considerable improvement over 1994 E-mu 8000, used in Emulator E64/E6400/E-Synth series and SoundBlaster AWE32, with 5 times the processing power, gates and double the polyphony. Now 2005 Creative SoundBlaster X-Fi features a DSP chip that has 25 tmes as much gates (51 million) and 70 times (!!!) as much processing power (over 30000 MIPS), allowing for up to 4096 voices.



this was weird considering the amazing A3000 sampler had just come out and not in the least bit utilized in the design of the EX5/7 series

A3000 and A4000/5000 were based on 1995 A7000 , essentially a development of the ill-fated Sequential Circuits Prophet 3000 of late 1980s. That’s why A-series samplers are completely unrelated to the EX5/Motif/ES, even though the latter feature similar (but incompatible) sampling functionality.

Re: Things Fusion does better than the ES

That’s a good point about having everything in one package, but if you were Mr. Yamaha would you really want that or would you want the consumer to buy more accesories/options/expansion boards?  The consumers may want it all in one but I think (maybe except for the current Oasys line) that the manufacturers can benefit from additions.

Would the idea or concept of a MotifMart even exist if everything was all in one?  Probably not.  (Maybe memory would be available to sell.)

No doubt they can implement synthesis engines now.  They should have been able to do it in 1998.  (Apparently they didn’t have enough beta testers, though… LOL!) I personally like the “add what you need if you need it” option strategy that currently exists.  In fact, the next Oasys is rumored to be a base keyboard concept where things are added by the consumer.  More convienient for the consumer and the manufacturer can profit off it as well. 

$8,500 or so is very steep. 

But if you were to stay to the consumer that the base purchase (base concept) you are about to make will never be obsolete - then I think a lot more people would invest rather than signing the big check.

Great topic and posts… I could talk about this stuff for days!

Best,
Andrew

P.S. Thanks for the review of the Alesis Fusion.  That is the most complete test I have seen anywhere.

Re: Things Fusion does better than the ES

DmitryKo,

could you tell me more about the A7000? This was never released, was it?

Additional synth models?

andy1,

Would the idea or concept of a MotifMart even exist if everything was all in one? Probably not. (Maybe memory would be available to sell.)
Well, I’m under impression that PLG boards and expansion option(s) make only minor part of the MotifMart…


The consumers may want it all in one but I think (maybe except for the current Oasys line) that the manufacturers can benefit from additions… I personally like the “add what you need if you need it” option strategy that currently exists.

As good an idea as it seems, not much people buy sound expansion options these days.  They prefer to spend on 1) sample libraries that you can load in any software or hardware instrument 2) different software/hardware synths that add some unique sound.
Just look how Yamaha had to blow their supplies of PLG150-AN and PLG150-DX by placing them inside DX-200 and AN-200 . Korg had to include most of their PCM expansion banks to the Triton Extreme, for less price. And E-mu simply went out of hardware synth/sampler business, even though they had the most complete portfolio of options, including factory retrofitting for older sampler models.


IMHO Yamaha should offer multitimbral and polyphonic AN/DX/VL synthesis and improved user experience to stay competitive with Roland, Korg, Alesis and many virtual analog offers. Low-end recorders and virtual analog synths are going to fade away in any case, now that software offers more for a less price. The whole point is Yamaha can make much more capable synth with way less usability limitations, for a fraction of what the cost would be in the past, considering all the technological advances. If they make it right, they can capture more sales that would otherwise go to software and VA competition, and also price the units accordingly to the features included (just remember how the price of the ES was raised following the overwhelming demand and how OASYS is still sold despite its record-breaking price).


That doesn’t necessarily mean additional synth models should be shipped in the box - they could make additional synths to require additional DSP option or plug-in card. But what they absolutely need is to make their new offer as seamless for novices as they can, because I hear people complain about the complexity of the ES all the time.
Today’s PLG are not an integral part of the host synth, they are treated much like a standalone synth module with limited polyphony and sound processing capabilities and no multitimbral operation. The only fact that you can’t even edit PLG voices makes them way less usable than they could be (yes I know there are software editors, yet they are far from being much better than onboard editor would be). 
Likewise, Yamaha’s hardware DAWs are offering many features that would be considered overkill for amateur and project studio work, and are not as simple to use as integrated HDR would be. Placing a limited version of a DAW in a synth would benefit many users who would otherwise just use software DAW (maybe even the SQ01). The same goes for virtual instruments, provided they overcome the limitations of MSPS.


BTW, just imagine how could Yamaha and Cubase implement an universal “project” file format, a kind of Pocket Cubase that would include audio, MIDI tracks and also synth Program/Mix data, so that you can share it between your DAW, synth workstation and software audio sequencer! I’m all for optional components as well, if you read some of my older rants on new features to include in future synths ( part 1 , part 2 ), I was talking about some Plug-and-play improvements like voice name protocol, and also some (a bit crazy) options like analog control surface, mixer, sequencer upgrade, DAW option, VGA board etc…

A7000

Hugo,

A7000 was a bulky 4U rack with lots of parameter buttons, level meter, jog dial and numeric keyboard on its unusuall tall front panel, released in Japan only and followed by a V2 unit very soon. I don’t have any detailed specs but I guess it was essentially an A3000 built with previous generation IC technology.

The picture can be seen here:
[url=http://www.yamaha.co.jp/product/syndtm/p/tonesamp/a7000v2/index.html]http://www.yamaha.co.jp/product/syndtm/p/tonesamp/a7000v2/index.html [/url]

Re: A7000

A7000 (touch screen not shown) Yes, it had a separate touch screenpad back in 1995!!!!

http://forums.keyfax.com/user-files/215554-a7000.jpg

Re: A7000

Wow! Amazing /forums/images/icons/smile.gif alt=
Do you have the specs, Bad Mister?

Re: A7000

I did 10 years ago… I have purged that data… Windows 3.1 anyone?

Re: A7000

I don’t know why would you need it… but anyways.

[url=http://www.yamaha.co.jp/manual/japan/result.php?div_code=&model=A7000&cat_code=&div_code=]http://www.yamaha.co.jp/manual/japan/result.php?div_code=&model=A7000&cat_code=&div_code= [/url]

*Tone generation method
AWM2

*Polyphony
32 notes(expandable to 64 notes with TG board (ATGB32)), 16 multitimbral parts, layers

*Key assignment
Last-note priority, dynamic voice allocation, mono-mode supported

*A/D conversion
20 bit Delta Sigma, 64x oversampling, 48kHz,44.1kHz,32kHz, 29.4kHz (mono and stereo)

*D/A conversion
20 bit 8x over sampling

*Digital clock
internal 48, 44.1kHz (AES/EBU, CD/DAT, WCLK and YAMAHA)
external 48k-10/+5%Hz and 44.1k-10/+10% Hz

*Sampling frequency
analog input 48, 44.1 and 32, 29.4kHz
digital input 48, 44.1 and 32, 29.4kHz
resampling 48, 44.1 and 32, 29.4kHz, stereo synchronous recording (no mono)

*Digital I/O
CD/DAT terminal S/P-DIF
AES/EBU terminal AES/EBU format
YAMAHA terminal YAMAHA format

* Permantent storage
3.5 inch floppy disk drive (2HD / 2DD )

optional
3.5 inch MO drive :  230 M byte
3.5 inch HD drive :  340 - 540 M bytes

* Dimensions
rack-mounted 4U: W 430mm x D 420mm x H 180mm

* Weight
15.8kg (up to 18kg with options and memory expansion )

* Power consumption
75w (up to 130W with memory expansion)

Re: Alesis Fusion

DK,

Thanks for the detailed report, but for me only one word is necessary: Alesis. For the past few years, starting with the ION and Microns, that name has meant just one thing: piece of crap. Late to market, full of bugs, unreliable, piece of junk.

Fusion seems to be following in at least some of the footsteps in being incredibly late to market.

Pros need gear that works, not empty promises and late-arriving sub-standard crap.

On any gig I do, I would never chance it with a Fusion, but would always choose a Motif for its reliability and wide acceptance.

However as a buyer, I wait for Yamaha to announce the successor to the ES. Meanwhile I enjoy my ES Rack for the relatively small outlay of just around $1,000.

VGA interface

Wilton,

I wouldn’t consider the Fusion as well, simply because it has a soundset that’s too hiphop oriented and I’m perfectly satisfied with sound quality of the ES, but sometimes I do feel it’s a complicated beast, maybe unecessarily so. When other synth makers are doing things better it is only beneficial for us consumers, because it encourages competition /forums/images/icons/wink.gif alt=


I jsut believe it’s time for Yamaha to move on from 7-year old technologies like AWM2 engine and UI inherited from the EX5, and get to a higher level of karma… or maybe Karma? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif alt=


If the next music production workstation from Yamaha would support VGA interface option that features graphical sequencer with audio and MIDI tracks (see MV-8000 Version 2.0 Owner’s Manual and screenshots below) and includes support for external control surfaces with motorized faders or knobs with LED level indicators (see Behringer BCF2000 and BCR2000 ), I would gladly switch to this solution and forget about PC software forever!

http://www.behringer.com/BCF2000/BCF2000_medium.jpg
http://www.behringer.com/BCR2000/BCR2000_medium.jpg


On-board LCD will be use for live events and rehearsals, but for enhanced voice/mix editing and MIDI/audio recording capabilities you’d have to use this optional VGA (or better) interface . OK, maybe I’d still pass some WAV tracks to SoundForge a couple of times /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif alt= But all in all, I rarely need anything beyond some basic MIDI editing functions and a couple of audio tracks, and I’m just tired of lots of bugs and incompatibilities that exist with software.


Just look how nice these screen look, even comparing to today’s software…


MV-8000 OS v 3.0

http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM05/Content/Roland/PR/MV-8000-V3-bass-lg.gif
[url=http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM05/Content/Roland/PR/MV-8000-V3.html]http://namm.harmony-central.com/WNAMM05/Content/Roland/PR/MV-8000-V3.html [/url]


VS-2480 OS v 2.0

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug02/images/rolandvs2480waveform.l.gif


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug02/images/rolandvs2480chview.l.gif
[url=http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug02/articles/vs2480v2.asp]http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug02/articles/vs2480v2.asp [/url]


Yamaha has all the technology to make it possible as well - they make sampling and virtual modeling sythesizers, digital mixers and hard disk recorders, now they even have Steinberg who are pioneers of software sequencing. I mean if they developed graphical sequencer for the Atari ST, they would have no trouble designing the UI for a tomorrow’s synth workstation that’s over 100 times as powerful /forums/images/icons/wink.gif alt=

Re: VGA interface

Those are great shots. Thanks for including them. No doubt the future is continued progression towards synergy of hardware and software. Roland is definitely on the right track with these products, and Yamaha looks to be as well with Studio Manager, et al.

The next “flagship” workstation from Yamaha (successor to the ES) must continue this trend. If users want to compose away from the PC/Mac then the UI and display must accomodate that - i.e. a color display and the ability to use an external monitor.

Then if the user wants to integrate further into a software-based studio, it should be seamless. The instrument should be designed with this in mind at its most core level.

I think most potential buyers will be musicians who need a hardware synth to do gigs with, but don’t want a big hunk of metal sitting around gathering dust while they produce in the software realm at the home studio. Now of course MLan and Studio Manager both address this situation, but I want to see Yamaha go much further with their next flagship workstation.

Can’t wait ‘till NAMM 2006 - 13 weeks. Unless Yamaha decides to announce early - wouldn’t object to that at all!

Re: VGA interface

Okay - I am officially drooling at this point.  Vote:  Yes for VGA board technology!  I can’t wait for NAMM either.  I would figure that there has got to be a big announcement from one of the big three.  (Yamaha, Roland or Korg.) Let’s hope it is Yamaha with a Motif ES Studio kind of thing with either a redesigned user interface with a larger LCD or VGA output - not to mention direct transfer for audio to your computer.  That seems like the logical progression at this point.  I would have one right now if the UI did not take a college course to master.  (Much of that has to do with the not so generous LCD.) I have a grasp of the user interface but its nowhere as near user friendly as say a Roland Fantom X.  I would gladly pay more for a “super” Motif that has it all.  (As mentioned earlier, - I am selfish and want AW 1600 features thrown in as well - CD drive - bring it on!)

As far as the Fusion - you can go to [url=http://www.fusionsynth.com]http://www.fusionsynth.com [/url] and see that almost 70 bugs have already been reported.  Alesis have claimed to fix these - but you never know.  For instance, read everything about the arpeggiator… There’s like 10 major bugs - just on an arpeggiator!

I agree Wilton - let’s see a total seemless integration between the new Yamaha workstation and a PC!

Best,
Andrew

Re: VGA interface

Here’s how it looks in Yamaha’s own product, PM1D/PM5D series of digital mixers.

http://forums.keyfax.com/user-files/216120-pm5d.gif



I wouldn’t be too extatic about it though, because it’s a high-end product with built-in SVGA screen, and I really doubt Yamaha will include such a screen in their new workstation. Besides, such UI paradigm begs to be controlled by mouse or touchpad. I’d expect a simplier BW interface as seen on the QY700/EOSB2000 (and also DM1000/01R96/DM2000 and AW2400), with emphasis on software editor tools… which I came to hate at this point /forums/images/icons/mad.gif alt=



http://dmitry.saviours.ru/VoiceVoicePlay320.gifhttp://dmitry.saviours.ru/SampleWaveformEdit320.gif
http://dmitry.saviours.ru/VoiceMixer320.gifhttp://dmitry.saviours.ru/SongEdit320.gif


There’s a possibility that there would be a VGA out with clone capability, as on the Tyros2, but IMHO this black-and-white UI wouldn’t look good on a big screen. But if they redone the interface using PM1D developments and included 8-bit color… nah, too much guessing at this point /forums/images/icons/wink.gif alt=