But these posts exist. They have existed in the past, they still exist today. This is by no means the only thread where this issue has been discussed. This is not me making anything up. There are SOME (a few) willing to comment on the problem, which they themselves say varies from style to style, which makes sense as some styles will accentuate the problem, and others will make it less apparent. And then there are others unwilling to admit ANY flaw at all.

Just from a technical standpoint, here is a fundamental feature of an arranger (the number of fills, and how smoothly you can go from ANY variation to any other variation) that is quite obviously trailing most other manufacturers. Two or three fills (depending on whether you have a B/Fill or not) is a HUGE step backwards from most other manufacturers. But instead of going 'Hey, Korg! Can't we have as many as at least Yamaha, and do away with ANY jumpy fills at all?' you spend your time trying to tell those that ARE willing to discuss the possibility that this MIGHT be a good idea to just STFU... How DARE we discuss this? Some of us haven't even BOUGHT one, so what right have we to talk about it? ROFLMAO...

Look, I understand that you can work around the problem, somewhat. I understand that, in the hands of a good performer, you might not notice the problem at all (after he has either re-written the styles or figured out in advance WHAT combination of buttons to NOT hit to avoid the flaw). Sure, flaws can be covered up and avoided. But wouldn't it simply be easier to ask Korg for a few more fills, so you don't even have to THINK about the problem..?

Korg, more than almost any other arranger manufacturer, have shown their willingness to provide quite significant updates to the operating system. Some very innovative and original functions have been added, after the fact, to existing arrangers (rather than simply coming out with a new model), and I think that Korg owners, definitely more than most others, actually have a chance to get this issue addressed. But only if you are willing to admit it even exists.

Sure... you CAN make good music with two fills. But you can make BETTER music with more. Where's the harm in asking?

Is it really THAT hard to admit ANY flaw that you would be willing to forego any improvement in the future, simply to avoid discussing it?

My G70, for me, is STILL the best arranger currently available, and addresses my needs closer than any other arranger. I am proud to own one, play one every day, and it garners kudos from all I play with. But I am the FIRST to take Roland to task for any flaws it might have, in the hope that some of them will get addressed. Some of them have, some of them haven't. BUT AT LEAST I TRIED...

I do not spend my time trying to tell potential buyers and the simply curious that these flaws do not exist. I already AM comfortable with my purchase, despite the flaws.

Where's the harm in that?