Topic: Main difference between SX600 vs. SX900 (technical)

[ACSACS]

Hi folks,

Here are the differences I know about :

SX900 :
Better keyboard action
Better speakers
Pitch bend/mod stick
Touch screen
More sounds

However, I want to know the sound engine differences please. Specifically, what is making the SX900 sound much better with the same style playing?

My suspicions are :

Is there a greater number of simultaneous DSP effects possible on SX900?
Are there better quality versions of the same sounds, ie  an acoustic bass with more sample layers in SX900?

It would be great if people could not speculate, but point me to definite information please. I can't seem to find this info in the manual.

Many thanks,

[DerekA]

I can tell you that SX900 has 3 DSP available to target the style, while SX600 only has 1. That information is available in the reference manuals.

They both use the same AWM2 tone generation engine, with the same set of parameters to control the sound, based on the original XG specification.

You won't find any information on the differences in sample layers, etc. published anywhere.

The service manuals (which I don't have) would be the only place to see details of hardware differences.

[mikf]

If you plan to design and manufacture arrangers this probably is interesting, but as a consumer my main thought is “why does it matter. “. It is better, it costs more, you pays your money, you take your choice.
Mike

[janamdo]

If you plan to design and manufacture arrangers this probably is interesting, but as a consumer my main thought is “why does it matter. “. It is better, it costs more, you pays your money, you take your choice.
Mike

Come on ..this person want to know exactly what the sound quality is of the SX900
A legitime question.

[mikf]

So if we know the answer, does that change anything?
Mike

[overover]

Hi ACSACS,

as you can see from the specifications (Owner's Manual) the SX900 contains additional "VCM" (Virtual Circuit Modeling) effect types (for use in the  Variation Effect Block and the 8 Insertion Effect Blocks):

SX900:
Reverb: 59 Preset
Chorus: 106 Preset
Variation Effect: 322 Preset (with VCM)
Insertion Effect 1–8: 322 Preset (with VCM)

SX600:
Reverb Block: 52 Preset
Chorus Block: 106 Preset
DSP Block 1 (Variation): 295 Preset
DSP Blocks 2-5 (Insertion): 295 Preset

By the way, the information mentioned by Derek regarding the assignment of the DSP Blocks (Effect Blocks) to the individual Parts can be found in the SX900 Reference Manual on page 105 respectively in the SX600 Reference Manual on page 88.


Best regards,
Chris

[janamdo]

So if we know the answer, does that change anything?
Mike

Yes.. ..buy the next generation  SX900

[DerekA]

Yes.. ..buy the next generation  SX900

Without being too pedantic ... SX600 was released after SX900 ...

[pjd]

SX900 contains additional "VCM" (Virtual Circuit Modeling) effect types (for use in the  Variation Effect Block and the 8 Insertion Effect Blocks)

Building on Chris's comment, the SX900 has additional "Real Distortion" effects for guitars and such.

The SX900 also has a richer set of MegaVoice voices. Yamaha uses MegaVoice extensively in its styles. This kind of information may be found in the Data List PDF for each instrument in the Voice List section.

As to "speakers," the differences are not insignificant:

    SX900: 13 cm x 2 + 2.5 cm (dome) x 2, (15 W + 10 W) x 2
    SX600: 12 cm x 2, 15 W x 2

The SX900 is bi-amplified, the SX600 is not. Yamaha takes a far bit of care in the acoustic design and characteristics of its instruments, i.e., they don't just shove the speakers into any old box.    But, you do get what you pay for...

I think at this point, voices of the same name and MSB/LSB/PC# use the same waveform samples across instruments. Yamaha doesn't need to skimp on memory space and it's more of a development hassle to differentiate individual voices in this way. The only possible exception is piano voices as Yamaha seems to have a "thing" about pianos. 

Hope this information helps -- pj

[Amwilburn]

The sx600 is based on a stripped down PSRs770 chipset (which itself is stripped down from the Tyros 2, but with the T4 drums, and world kits added) and about 100mb of flash ram for samples.

The sx900 is based on a stripped down Tyros 5 (No S.Art 2 or Ensemble mode), but with a stripped down version of the Revo drums, world kits, and 1 gig of preinstalled flash ram for samples (the T5 didn't include any, the 1GB expansion was an extra $300)

The biggest differences would be the drums, brass, & strings (the sx600 doesn't have any good solo strings sampled, the T5/sx900 does); the ensemble strings were sampled down to cello on the sx600 but *not* down to contrabass like the sx900, and the T5 introduced a ton of new guitar samples, esp acoustic steel string, that you won't find on the sx600.

The 24w 2 way speakers vs the 50w 4 way on the sx900, that's just icing on the cake; even on headphones the difference is huge. Not to mention touch screen vs non touch, joystick vs mod & pitch wheel,  dual usb ports vs 1 (very handy when you've also got a UDWL01), no mic input or VH on the sx600


You could literally spend a couple days just trying out the sx900 sounds that don't exist on the sx600!

Mark

[janamdo]

Without being too pedantic ... SX600 was released after SX900 ...

I am interested maybe to buy the successor of the present SX900, ( or SX700 too)

[Fred Smith]

I am interested maybe to buy the successor of the present SX900,

You'll be waiting a long time -- three or four years.

Cheers,
Fred

[janamdo]

You'll be waiting a long time -- three or four years.

Cheers,
Fred

Yes, but i do have SX600 what satisfied me, so enough to practice and learn
I am not really waiting... luckily

Cheers
Jan

[blackpool]

If you want my opinion .....For the price difference between the 600 and 900 ( which is huge )  I personally think the 700 would be a better option . Far nearer the 900 in spec and not much more cost than a 600 if you shop around.
I only have 700 now ( moved down from a 900 ) and managed to buy a new Korg i3 to pair with the 700 with the cash back.

Regards - Keith

ps. Sorry I've been absent of late ....that 4 letter word called 'work' has been occupying me all Summer!!  as I am a seasonal...so glad it's heading to Winter and chance to hibernate and play the Yamaha!!

[mikf]

That’s the key questions, is the improved performance worth the additional cost to that buyer. And if so, is it still within their budget.
Realistically, I don’t think whether the improvement comes from DSPs or pixie dust is going to factor into the decision.
Mike

[janamdo]

If you want my opinion .....For the price difference between the 600 and 900 ( which is huge )  I personally think the 700 would be a better option . Far nearer the 900 in spec and not much more cost than a 600 if you shop around.

Hi,
Interesting advice!!
I choose the sx600, because the sx 700 or sx900 price difference i found too much.
The sx600 is a limited keyboard overall in performance and ease of use.
Learning the SX600 keyboard is a good base for upgrading to a better keyboard
Buying a second hand SX700 or SX900 becomes more attractive when they are older, so i can buy this too.
Better is to buy the newest sx700 or sx900 successsor.





 
 

[ACSACS]

Hi ACSACS,

as you can see from the specifications (Owner's Manual) the SX900 contains additional "VCM" (Virtual Circuit Modeling) effect types (for use in the  Variation Effect Block and the 8 Insertion Effect Blocks):

SX900:
Reverb: 59 Preset
Chorus: 106 Preset
Variation Effect: 322 Preset (with VCM)
Insertion Effect 1–8: 322 Preset (with VCM)

SX600:
Reverb Block: 52 Preset
Chorus Block: 106 Preset
DSP Block 1 (Variation): 295 Preset
DSP Blocks 2-5 (Insertion): 295 Preset

By the way, the information mentioned by Derek regarding the assignment of the DSP Blocks (Effect Blocks) to the individual Parts can be found in the SX900 Reference Manual on page 105 respectively in the SX600 Reference Manual on page 88.


Best regards,
Chris

Thankyou for this, yes I actually discovered the 'reference manual' for the first time yesterday. Lots of useful info. I appreciate you comment though.

[ACSACS]

I can tell you that SX900 has 3 DSP available to target the style, while SX600 only has 1. That information is available in the reference manuals.

They both use the same AWM2 tone generation engine, with the same set of parameters to control the sound, based on the original XG specification.

You won't find any information on the differences in sample layers, etc. published anywhere.

The service manuals (which I don't have) would be the only place to see details of hardware differences.

This is great thankyou

[ACSACS]

If you plan to design and manufacture arrangers this probably is interesting, but as a consumer my main thought is “why does it matter. “. It is better, it costs more, you pays your money, you take your choice.
Mike

Well, different things are interesting to different people. THIS is interesting to me!

[ACSACS]

Building on Chris's comment, the SX900 has additional "Real Distortion" effects for guitars and such.

The SX900 also has a richer set of MegaVoice voices. Yamaha uses MegaVoice extensively in its styles. This kind of information may be found in the Data List PDF for each instrument in the Voice List section.

As to "speakers," the differences are not insignificant:

    SX900: 13 cm x 2 + 2.5 cm (dome) x 2, (15 W + 10 W) x 2
    SX600: 12 cm x 2, 15 W x 2

The SX900 is bi-amplified, the SX600 is not. Yamaha takes a far bit of care in the acoustic design and characteristics of its instruments, i.e., they don't just shove the speakers into any old box.    But, you do get what you pay for...

I think at this point, voices of the same name and MSB/LSB/PC# use the same waveform samples across instruments. Yamaha doesn't need to skimp on memory space and it's more of a development hassle to differentiate individual voices in this way. The only possible exception is piano voices as Yamaha seems to have a "thing" about pianos. 

Hope this information helps -- pj

Great info thankyou!

[ACSACS]

So many great responses, thankyou PSR users!

I think my takeaway is that it's mainly the extra (and more advanced) DSP FX that make most of the difference.

I do like the idea of the better speaker system on the SX900, but I'm not sure about the touchscreen. I like buttons!

Anyway, I'm discovering more about my sx600 each day, and it's fun to play around with. I don't know if I'll upgrade form here, probably not for now at least.

Cheers folks

[janamdo]

Only problem is the handling of th playlist on SX600..a vital part, but the manual is totally acadabra for me at page 88, ok i think i understand it 
With trial and error i di not got far and now i am using the manual to get grip  the playlist
note: it is cheaper the SX600 then SX700/900,but you have to study more

[pjd]

That’s the key questions, is the improved performance worth the additional cost to that buyer. And if so, is it still within their budget.
Realistically, I don’t think whether the improvement comes from DSPs or pixie dust is going to factor into the decision.
Mike

For sitting and playing, maybe so. However, there are use cases where detailed information is helpful to a buyer. Example: Some musicians use MIDI files instead of styles, and edit the MIDI files to use certain DSP effects, e.g., guitar effects. Advanced effects make a significant difference in sound and enjoyment. Knowing the specific capabilities of the instrument are part of the decision making process.

I actually prefer to sequence MIDI files on a Yamaha arranger than a Yamaha synth due to the simplicity of the XG architecture -- and I do have an MODX, too. 

Different customers have different processes and criteria when buying. Vive la différence!

All the best -- pj

[Jeff Hollande]

You are right, PJ, there are many different " key " musicians with their different applications :
the home player, the gigger, the daw user, the band player, the ex organ player etc. etc.
That means all of them have different demands and needs.

IMHO most of the PSR Tut Forum members are " older " home players.

It looks like younger musicians prefer digital piano's and synths.
I think these musicians are not much interested in arranger keyboards.

Best regards, JH

[vadesriux]

One thing an arranger beats any synth hands down is ease of use when multitrack recording. I have experience on this. I can record a song with several tracks on a SX900 in 20 minutes. But when using for instance a Kronos or a MODX7 those 20 minutes are spent only trying to figure out how the sequencer works. And 20 minutes is not enough....

[Jeff Hollande]

Maybe that is the main reason why arrangers are wanted and loved by older people : plug and play.🤓

JH

[vadesriux]

Exactly Jeff. Yamaha, since Genos new interface, which was transfered to SX700/900, has given us a super simple way of working that other keyboards simply dont offer. And for me This is the Big achievement Yamaha has come to.

[Jeff Hollande]

Correct but ... an arranger is not a synth.
Different customers and different applications.

Never tell a real synth player he should switch and go for an arranger. He/she will never agree.
It is another world with different demands and needs.

Pro synth players do believe arranger keyboards are not " real " instruments.
IMHO a complete wrong conclusion ... but who am I ?

Best regards, JH

[vadesriux]

You are right Jeff. Personally, I have always had synthesizers: Roland D-20; Motif XS6; MODX7; Kronos 61. And recording songs in these instruments has always been a nightmare. But once again, with the exception of the Kronos and the XS6, which were labeled at the time as "workstations", a synthesizer is not supposed to be a multi-track recording machine. That is true. So you'll have to know very well what you intend to do when buying a keyboard. Otherwise you'll end up frustrated because you will only be able to "tweak" with sounds. But once again: that could be your goal. To many people it is. I myself dont like to keep tweaking buttons and dials for hours. I prefer to... just play and enjoy, and recording of course.

And so we come to the arranger concept. The perfect tool if you want to "play and enjoy listening what you are playing", tweak a little bit with a pre-determined sound, and recording at-once or multi-tracking with minimum fuss. And that only an arranger can do. The alternative is to connect one or several synths to a computer DAW. To me that doesnt cut it because it takes all the fun away.

The statement that an arranger is not a "real instrument"... nothing more than an opinion from someone. And as far as opinions go, the world is full of them :O)

[Jeff Hollande]

I am not a synth user.  I am an arranger freak.😀

I tried a few but never was successful.
The synth is not my piece of cake and I am afraid it will never be, I guess.

BUT I am an XGWORKS ( midi  ) user and a Cakewalk user ( audio ).
I will start with Cubase ( Mac  ) soon. I already installed this prog.

I am happy with my SX900 but I am sure the Genos is a dream.
But an old man like me cannot have it all.🤭

Best wishes, JH

[DerekA]

The frustrating part (to many of us) is that the arrangers use the AWM2 tone generation, which is the same as Montage and MODX (though they also add the FM-X engine). But the restriction is that the panel on the arrangers doesn't give access to all the underlying parameters or all the elements that make up a sound.

If only Yamaha would add some pages on the touch-screen UI to be able to dive into the structure of the voice, many people would be happy. They used to do this on earlier Tyros models. But I guess they got feedback that nobody used that feature so they pushed it out into the YEM "experience".

[Jeff Hollande]

I wonder what will happen to YEM in the near future if Genos and SX
would be replaced by successors ?

JH

[mikf]

You are right Jeff. Personally, I have always had synthesizers: Roland D-20; Motif XS6; MODX7; Kronos 61. And recording songs in these instruments has
The statement that an arranger is not a "real instrument"... nothing more than an opinion from someone. And as far as opinions go, the world is full of them :O)

In the hands of a talented musician the arranger can be  brilliant instrument. But the arranger is specifically designed to be easy play and easy record. That means most of us who are a lot less talented can't wait to hoist our musical performances on the world in a way that wasn't normally possible with traditional instruments. Since these performances are typically not all that good the reputation of the instrument itself can become tarnished.
Mike

[Jeff Hollande]

Mike  :

Can we say the arranger keyboard is the best choice for the home player : nice sound, plug-and-play, a great instrument for beginners, older people and even for professionals  ?

Best regards, JH

[mikf]

Jeff
I don't think there is a universal "best" choice. What I would say is that the arranger is a good choice for the adult who wants to learn to play keyboards later in life, or returns having been to lessons as a child, but not kept it up. It's also a good choice for the professional who wants to entertain as a OMB.
But we all have different needs and budgets. I love my CVP, but it still comes second to my grand piano. Fortunately, I am able to indulge myself in both, but if push came to shove, its the grand piano that would stay.
Mike

[andyg]

If only Yamaha would add some pages on the touch-screen UI to be able to dive into the structure of the voice, many people would be happy. They used to do this on earlier Tyros models. But I guess they got feedback that nobody used that feature so they pushed it out into the YEM "experience".

Pages 48 to 51 in the Genos Reference Manual details all the sound editing that can be done. Although the button-pushing on the Tyros/PSR-S models is replaced by working with the touch screen, it looks like all the same tweaks are available for you to edit and save User Voices. Is that what you thought was missing in the Genos?

[DerekA]

No Andy, I'm talking about being able to edit every parameter on all 8 elements. For example altering filter envelopes, or LFO waveforms, or LFO assignments, or activie key ranges, etc. AWM2 can do all this, we just can't access them via the panel as you can on MODX.

The voice set pages only offer simple edits that are applied to all elements.

[vadesriux]

I think you are missing the point here. A synth is made for tweaking sounds deeply. An arranger is made to play together with accompaniment and rhythms. Completely different goal. Completely different worlds. Simplicity vs complexity and depth of use.

Although, with style creator, you can really dive deep into the process of buiding a full style with rhythms.  But not tweaking a single sound to its core.

Yamaha will never mix both these worlds in a single instrument. Never did so actually.

[mikf]

While not disagreeing with your basic point about mixing two worlds, it is interesting that Yamaha have already provided a lot of overlap on TOTL arrangers into the world of synths and workstation capabilities - but stop well short of total duplication. It’s puzzling to work out where they decide to draw the line, and probably it’s a bit of a moving target.
But I imagine it’s their judgement of what drives the sales of each instrument. So if, for example, they believe only a tiny percentage of arranger buyers would use deep editing of voices, then any added cost to provide it would have little benefit to arranger sales, while possibly cutting into sales of synths. But we can only guess.
Going from my own experience of technology and marketing, these kind of decisions probably also provoke ‘quite heated’ debate inside Yamaha. As a past insider in the keyboard development world, Andy G might throw more light on how these decisions get made.
Mike

[pjd]

I had a conversation with a few of the Yamaha synth folks about the arranger synthesis engine vs. the synthesizer synthesis engine.

At the bottom -- the hardware layer -- the hardware is the same. Both product lines use the SWP70 tone generator IC, same DACs, etc.

The layer(s) above the hardware give each product line its unique engine. The arrangers adhere to the Yamaha XG synthesis and effect architecture, which Yamaha specified in some detail (1990s). Arranger voice edit features are the high level "knobs" in an XG voice.

The synthesizers have different software layers and are not XG. Yamaha publish the synth parameter guide which effectively lays out the  synthesis engine for the synthesizer product line. The synthesizers expose far more parameters for tweaking than XG. The synth engine is closer to the native hardware, AKA "closer to the metal". 

Aside from exposed, editable parameters, articulation is another area of major difference. Yamaha Expanded Articulation (XA) is closer to the native hardware than S.Art. (S.Art2 is a whole other matter.) S.Art requires software intervention.

YEM gives a glimpse of what lies below the XG layer. If you really want to see what's there, open a UVF file in a text editor and browse. Quite a bit is not exposed in YEM. Nothing of S.Art (or S.Art2) is exposed/editable in YEM.

I could imagine Yamaha drawing the line at XG for simplicity's sake as far as arrangers are concerned. (For all the usual reasons.)

All the best -- pj

[Jeff Hollande]

Thank you very much for this detailed Yamaha technical lesson, PJ.
🤓
You are showing us the real differences between a synth and an arranger. Two different worlds. Indeed.

Some of your explanation is too complicated for me since I am not a technician. I am sorry.🤭.

But in general I can follow your words and I do understand now, thanks to you, why I prefer an arranger. 🌞

Thanks again and best regards, JH

[ACSACS]

Just thought I'd add my own view on the synth/arranger comparrison.

I played synths for years in bands mostly Yamaha Motif series. There's really not much difference in the sounds but as others said the editing potential.

In short arrangers swap the deep editing for other functions like auto accompaniment. The only other main difference was the Motif was obviously built to withstand the rigours of touring. It was made of metal, with a premium keyboard action. Maybe the top end Genos arranger is the same though, I've only had the PSR series ( S910, SX600).

Enjoying my SX600 now, I think it still has plenty of editing capacity for most things.

[Jeff Hollande]

Hi ACSACS :

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Maybe a silly question then ... why are Yamaha not building a Genos Synth-Arranger ?
Or ... might nobody be interested in this so called " NEW " instrument ?

Cheers, JH

[vadesriux]

One thing some guys do is to stack a MODX or a KORG i3 on top of an arranger like SX900 / GENOS. That would be a perfect combination for anyone wanting both worlds. But as we know that cames at a price since you'll have to buy 2 keyboards.

By the way, GENOS has seen its price raised this week to a staggering 3750 € (!!). I know its a terrific instrument (I had one), but this price is... Wow.

[Jeff Hollande]

I have 2 arrangers on one stand. That's more than enough for me.
No need and no place for " a different world ".🤗

Best wishes, JH

[DerekA]

By the way, GENOS has seen its price raised this week to a staggering 3750 € (!!). I know its a terrific instrument (I had one), but this price is... Wow.

It's even higher in the UK. Genos + speakers is now about £1000 more than when I bought mine! For once I got it right and bought when it was at its lowest price.

[ACSACS]

Hi ACSACS :

Thank you for your interesting comments.

Maybe a silly question then ... why are Yamaha not building a Genos Synth-Arranger ?
Or ... might nobody be interested in this so called " NEW " instrument ?

Cheers, JH

I suppose on one level the idea is to have two seperate products that do each thing well, rather than a combo one that does it all together.

But also maybe they are only cousins rather than brothers. Perhaps the arrangers descend from the line of organs, whereas the synths descend from Yamaha's analog synthesisers from the 70s and 80s. However there is a lot of crossover anyway. I'm quite liking the editing capabilites of my arranger actually. It can still be quite flexible.

[mikf]

Maybe a silly question then ... why are Yamaha not building a Genos Synth-Arranger ?
Or ... might nobody be interested in this so called " NEW " instrument ?

It's not nobody, because some would definitely love it. But Yamaha is a global business, not a little garage operation like MOOG was when it started.  So it's about about how many. In general the band player has no need for auto accompaniment, and the typical arranger player does not delve too much into the music production, sound manipulation world. So that probably doesn't create critical drive in the market for what would be a quite expensive, and complex instrument.
Mike

[hans1966]

One thing some guys do is to stack a MODX or a KORG i3 on top of an arranger like SX900 / GENOS. That would be a perfect combination for anyone wanting both worlds. But as we know that cames at a price since you'll have to buy 2 keyboards.

By the way, GENOS has seen its price raised this week to a staggering 3750 € (!!). I know its a terrific instrument (I had one), but this price is... Wow.

Hi Vadesriux, in my case, I still enjoy my SX900, and in addition I have added a totally different second keyboard which is the Kross 2, small compared to Kronos, MDOX, but good enough to make a beautiful combination with my SX900.

Cheers

Hans

[Jeff Hollande]

Very interesting, Hans.

Would be very grateful to know what you are doing with your Korg synth in combination with your SX900.

Thank you for your reply.
Kind regards, JH