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