I'm looking for a beefed-up replacement for my dear psr530. I'd like a more powerful sequencer, a disk drive for loading custom styles, etc and storage, a good-sounding amp/speaker section. Voice harmonization, if it really works, would be great. Can anyone let me have their opinion in regard to the psr2000 vs. the psr9000? What are the main differences and is the extra $1,000+ for the 9000 money well spent? I plan on performing rather informally and doing some composing. Thanks.

It depends on what you plan to do with the keyboard. The PSR-2000 is a good board, but users are finding that it's not really suited for heavy performance. Its construction is not up to par with the PSR-9000. If you have the money for the PSR-9000 you won't regret getting it. The PSR-2000 is a cheaper alternative, but again the construction quality is no where near that of the PSR-9000. Also take into account that the PSR-9000 is a big keyboard and it has some weight to it. Of course you'll get more features with the 9000, but there are a lot of people out there who don't like the size and weight. That's why some have chosen the 2000. The 9000 has more poly, way better speakers, sampler, more mb's to the sounds, and a few other things. The 2000 is a great alternative to the 9000, but if you have the money I'd suggest getting the 9000...

Squeak

I have to chime in on this one. I am one of the guy's that has gone from the 740 to the 9000. I loved the 740 for all its great features. But it lacked some of the flexability of the 9000. So I caved into my lust for bigger and better. I went right past the 2000 to the 9000. It was a great choice for me. Better harmonizer, better keybed, sampling, hard drive, UPGRADABLE OS. The list goes on and on, not even getting into the better sounds. ONE HUGE DRAWBACK!!! is the weight. It is more than twice as much as the 740/2000. That doesn't seem like a big deal until you want to take your 9000 out and about for the fun little get togethers that go on all the time. It used to be like grabbing a guitar and heading out the door. Now it feels like a grabbing a large bass guitar Amplifier whenever I want to go. The 9000 dwarfs to 740/2000 keyboard. I had a hard time finding a softcase that fit it to my satisfaction. Swinging 50 pounds plus any accessories you may have in the case, gets a little awkward with one hand. Not to mention you can't squeeze it into all the little places the 740/2000 would go. SO! If your looking for the most funtional board and the afore mentioned weight issues aren't that big of a deal to you, get the 9000. If you want a 24 pound board to slip under your arm and go have a great time jammin' every other night, get the 2000 and save yourself some frustration. The ONLY thing I miss about my 740, is the weight...or rather the lack of it.

Regards,

Dennis

And here's my two cents from a dealer's prospective......
What I haven't heard anyone else post is that the 2000 actually has better styles than the PSR9000. The session styles (some of the new ones) are not in the 9000 and they can't be loaded in because the 9000 wasn't made to accept this new extension type. Also, the sequencer in the 2000 is just like that found in the 9000, so for composing, you have a major upgrade over the 740's rather lacking sequencer. Except for the acoustic piano in the 9000pro, the sounds are pretty much the same in the 9000 and the 2000. Unless you need a hard drive, using the 2000 is great for playing styles from disk and playing midifiles from disk. It is also faster and easier to record songs when you need to quickly. I won't argue with the fact that the psr9000 is built more heavy duty, however most custsomers will be very satisfied with the 2000 for most situations.
George Kaye
Kaye's Music Scene
Reseda. California

Dennis...
The PSR 9000 is one terrific board. I used it on my one nighters for a year. One of the main attractions to the PSR 9000 for me was the registration memory which could be programmed to hold 512 registrations internally.

But, the weight and size issue became a real problem. That's when I realized I had to find something more manageable.

Before the introduction of the PSR 2000 I got the 740 and it did the job, but I still had to have a hard copy of the codes to get the registrations I had saved to disc. When the 2K was introduced I jumped at it to get the new operating system. And I am glad I did.

Using floppies, there is no limit to the number of registrations you can program. A single disc can hold at least 170 registrations, any of which can be accessed super fast as the OS stores them alphabetically. Plus, you can create folders (just like in Windows) to access certain areas of the alphabet without searching around. You will find other players here who set up their registrations differently or punch them in on the fly. It is a matter of personal preference and the PSR 2K gives you the option of doing it any way you want.

It has soooo many features it is hard to believe it is priced so low. UNTIL you read some of the posts here which point out that it is not built as well as some of the other boards and has the potential for malfunctioning under heavy use and transport.

Yamaha came very close to fulfilling my dream of perfect arranger. I baby mine and, so far, it has rewarded me with good service.
The jury is still out on its durability.

Eddie

I would still choose the PSR2000 over the PSR9000 even though my PSR2000 broke down after 6 months. One of the contacts under one of the buttons isn't responding well.

My other PSR is damaged due to my negligence. I must have hit it against something in the trunk of my car, and I cracked the LCD. It still works, but what a drag. I'll have to get it fixed and who knows how much it will cost me.

I had a false alarm on the same day with this keyboard. The system hung when I was turning it on, and all of my user memory got erased. It turned out that this was due to a defective floppy being in the keyboard. I guess a pants pocket isn't a good place to store a floppy.

I agree with George. The PSR2000's styles are better than the PSR9000's, and the PSR9000's styles load effortlessly into the PSR2000. I like that the OTS settings are embedded in the style.

I weigh 135 lbs., and the PSR9000 while it has certain considerable advantages over the PSR2000, is simply too heavy for me and too large to fit in my car. If I were twice as strong and had a bigger vehicle, I would probably get the PSR9000 because it has the hard drive.

You can load the PSR 2000's styles into the PSR9000. There is someone who altered them so they can be loaded. Even though Yamaha made us take these styles off the web, I and other people have them, and can email them to whoever wants them.

When I go to most gigs, I take the PSR2000 on my luggage carrier and I have an 18lb duffle bag with Advent Powered Partner speakers. These speakers deliver 35 watts per channel, and point diagonally upward towards the audience.

My audiences are really responding fantastically to this keyboard, and my business is doing very well.

If you are heavy handed, and are going to use the PSR2000 a lot, it is going to break faster than the PSR9000. So you better have a backup if you are doing professional work. But even with the PSR9000, you'll want a backup, because everything breaks.

Larry

I'm 6'5" and 250 pounds and I STILL got tired of lugging that 9000 around. As George says, the new styles really make the 2000.
I like the 2000, but I'm still mad at Yamaha. Just think, thousands of Japanese losing all that sleep because I'm mad at them.
The above replies pretty well sum it up. What features do you want and need? And how much are you willing to carry? Or you could get a Ketron or Korg.
DonM
P.S. You mentioned the vocal harmonizer. Works great in both. BUT if you need the Karaoke Girl or Speedy Mouse presets, they don't work right on the 2000 and Yamaha will not admit there is a problem. They did come up with a semi-usable workaround. That's like saying "There's no problem, but here's how to get around it."
Go figure.

Pashmee,
I think I need to follow up with this by saying, my personal preference may have skewed my view of your original need. As quoted above: Your looking for a "beefed-up replacement for your 530" without a doubt puting that in the proper context, your best bet would be the 2000. Its a huge step up with all that you will need for the use you described. Although you read alot of complaints from people who are somewhat dissatisfied, I believe many are using their machines in a professional manor. I have enjoyed the limited time I have had to play the 2000. While it's not the same keybaord as my 9000, it will probably meet all your needs.

Regards,

Dennis

I wish to thank all responders to my 2000/9000 question. You have given me very helpful information.
It's unfortunate that the PSR 2000 doesn't include a 76 key variant as I'm sometimes frustrated by my 530's 61 key limitations and may have the same frustration with the 2000. Is there a keyboard comparable to the PSR 2000 that is available in 76 key configuration? I like the PSR series and will probably stay with it, but I wonder whether there's a decent alternative.

Of course the 9000 Pro has 76 keys, but no speakers.
Ketron SD1 the same.
Don

This may be irrelevant if you need to be portable, but wasnt LindaFus "driving" her PSR2000 from a 76-key casio? Theres a post on here somewhere!

George K....The new Styles from the PSR2000 & CVP209 can in fact be loaded into the PSR9000 & 9000Pro.
A number of the the session styles that you mention have an extension either.sst (session styles) .pcs (Piano Combie Styles .pst (Piano Styles). If you use a PC to add .sty to the end any of these styles they with then load into the 9000's
I speak from experience having done just this to load into my 9000Pro. The odd style may produce an unusual bass hum when playing a minor chord, but this can be put right by either re-voicing in the 9000 style edit or deleting the system exclusive using Cakewalk.

Graham UK

Mac,

Yes, I drive the PSR2000 with a Casio Wk-1800 which is 76 keys. I assume you could use any 76 key midi keyboard to do this. The PSR has great midi settings and allows all kinds of configurations for that purpose. My daughter has the same setup. Works great!

-Linda

I'm going on a month with my 9000 Pro and thought I'd share some thoughts. I can't say how the 9000 Pro compares with the PSR2000 but maybe my experiences will add something to the discussion.

I do like the fact that the PSR2000 is using the new Scorch XF music display format and hope that could be a future upgrade for the 9000 Pro.

My 9000 Pro in it's carry case just fits in the back seat floorboard of my VW Cabrio so I have found it easy to transport despite the fact that it is a 76-note keyboard (in fact, it's only 3 inches longer than my former keyboard, the 61-note Roland EM-2000, however it is 10" longer than the PSR2000). At 45lbs it's not light but it's lighter and far less bulky than the PSR9000 and seems like it would be easier to carry, but it's nearly twice the weight of the PSR2000 if that's a consideration.

I use a pair of powered JBL EON 10's with it which weigh a mere 23lbs but deliver 175 watts each of biamped digital power. This combo is very effective and I just set the speakers behind me and tilt them up.

I added the Piano expansion card to my 9kPro give it a better acoustic piano and increased the polyphony to over 190 notes. That may sound like a lot but it isn't when you really put the accompaniment to work and play the keyboard overtop of it (many top sounds use more than one voice). This alone would put the either the 9000 Pro or the PSR9000 over the non-expandable 61-note polyphony PSR2000.

My 9000 Pro came with a hard drive and I find that indispensible because I play mostly solo gigs but I do some gigs with different vocalists, so now each singer I work with has their own directory on the HD that I can access quickly.

One other cool thing about the 9000 Pro is the gee-whiz effect... I am using a pair of gooseneck lights like Yamaha recommends for the 9000 Pro and they work great. The subdued light is enough to light up my music as well as the keyboard. This gives the 9000 Pro a soft glow from the stage that really gets attention. I have added to this by placing a couple of artificial flame pots on black plant stands on either side of the 9000 Pro when I play, which happen to have the same brushed-aluminum finish as the 9000 Pro (they are called "Bob" and are available from Musician's Friend). The end result is a simple but dramatic stage appearance with the 9000 lit up with "flames" on either side.

People are wowed by the 9000 Pro, both for how it sounds and for how it looks especially with it's lights at night. I rather enjoy enjoy working with a top-flight 21st century keyboard that looks the part.

Esh

http://www.mp3.com/esh

I wanted to follow up on what George Kaye had mentioned about the 9000 not being able to play the styles of the 2000. I believe he said due to the extention types, the 9000 would not play them. I own a 9000 and a CVP207. Out of curiosity I dumped all the 207 styles onto floppy and loaded them right into the 9000 with zero problems. I can not say as to whether or not the 2000 and the 207 have the same extensions. However, the 207 does have the SESSION styles as well as many other styles that are on the 2000. (probably many that are not on the 2000)These comments are not meant to discount the view of a professional dealer, but rather to give the forum a literal take on the functionality of the PSR 9000.

Regards,
Dennis

Dennis (Two Nuts),

I think what George Kaye may have meant regarding PSR2000/PSR9000 style incompatibility, is that the OTS settings (which are built into the PSR2000 styles) cannot be read by the PSR9000. The OTS settings are customized instrument voice settings (main,layer,left) and on the PSR2000, are integrated as part of the style file itself. On the PSR900/9000pro, OTS settings are stored in a separate file than the style file. The PSR2000 styles, when played on the PSR9000/9000pro, will play fine, except they do NOT included the OTS settings.

Hope this clarifies this issue. Still enjoying my PSR2000 - Scott

Hey Scott,

Thanks for the input about the OTS. If that is what George was referring to, you have disseminated his comments better than me.

Dennis

Hi Dennis,

I was only speculating about what George Kaye might have meant. I guess we need to find out 'for sure', after his return from Italy.

I think the 9000pro is certainly a terrific keyboard, but one IMPORTANT strong point (not yet mentioned in this thread) in favor of the PSR2000 is that it's sequencer supports a whopping 1,920 ppq (parts/quarter note) timing resolution. What does that mean? MUCH more accurate reproduction of your recorded styles and songs. I believe the 9000pro & PSR9000 only support 192ppq (or possibly 480 ppq). Either way, the PSR9000/9000pro's style & song sequencer's timing resolution is a far cry from the 1,920 ppq timing resolution supported on the PSR2000. The Technics KN keyboards are unfortunately even WORSE, at 96 ppq.

I recorded and played back my keyboard playing with the sequencer's timing resolution set at 1,960 ppq (unquantized). I then lowered (set) the timing resolution to 120ppq (quantized) and played back the recording again and could hear a clear difference in the recording. The recording lost much of the original spark which was there when played back at 1,920 ppq. The higher the timing resolution, the more life like & accurate the style pattern will sound to the original performance. A key element to what makes legendary musicians sound special is how they might play ever so slightly behind/ahead of the beat or subtly accent grooves (anticipations/delays), etc. The higher the note resolution the greater ability to capture was was intended. You may not conciously hear it, but you will 'feel' the spontaneous (non quantized) magic of the original performance. I'm confident that the Yamaha Tyros will support a sequencer timing resolution of 1,920 ppq as well. I can only hope the keyboarad manufacterer competition will quickly follow as I think the PSR2000 is the only arranger keyboard to date which supports 1,920 ppq.

- Scott

Scott:

It's good to see Yamaha's sequencers improving, but they have a long ways to go to catch up to the resolution of computer-based sequencers. For example, Steinburg's Cubase V.5 supports up to 15,380 ppq resolution. Whatever Tyros does, I'd bet good money it won't do that. All of your other points are quite valid (where did you came up with the PPQ resolution for the 9000 Pro's sequencer?). Since even the least expensive computer sequencers offer more than you can pack into any keyboard, the keyboard's internal sequencer is the least important thing to me... it's the polyphony that's my greatest concern because that determines how many keyboards and/or modules I will need to perform my music live. My 9000 Pro currently has the polyphony of more than three PSR2000's. I noticed that the Tyros' polyphony or it's ability (or inability) to take expansion boards hasn't been mentioned yet.


Esh

http://www.mp3.com/esh

Scott,
As soon as you lowered the rate, you effectivly added quantization, so that is why you heard a differance. I really doubt that anyone could tell the diff if there was NO quantization at all. Most sequencers allow all our timing mistakes to blare through quite nicely, don't you think?
I can only see an advantage with step input. Real time recording almost ALWAYS sounds better UNquantized. (That is, if you can keep time !)

In reality there is no such thing as 'un-quantized' because what 'unquantized mode' means is the maximum 'timing resolution' (abeit quantized) that particular keyboard's sequencer can support. On the Yamaha PSR2000, unquantized mode supports 1,920 ppq (parts/quarter note), and on the Technics KN6500, unquantized mode only supports 96 ppq. Because of this, the PSR2000 will 'more accurately' capture & record the timing of the original live performance than the KN6500.

I agree that hardware sequencers have a ways to go before they approach software sequencers, but still, compared to the competition, the Yamaha PSR2000 sequencer (both its song & style sequencers) timing resolution (1,920 ppq) is FAR SUPERIOR to any other hardware sequencer available today. All other arranger keyboard hardware sequencers only support 96ppq or 192 ppq at best. Even the Yamaha QY100 supports only 480 ppq, so seeing Yamaha incorporate 1,920 ppq in the PSR2000 is at least an encouraging sign that the manufacters are finally paying attention, because the higher the timing resolution, the more accurate, dynamic and realistic the arranger STYLES PATTERNS will sound.

Esh, you might be able to verify your 9000pro's max timing resolution (unquantized mode) by going into the step record window and see if there is a PPQ number displayed. On my PSR2000 it displays: 1920PPQ. I believe it was a technical rep at Yamaha that told me that the PSR9000/9000pro supported 192 ppq. Perhaps someone here could check & verify this.

I agree that the PSR9000/9000pro has almost double the polyphony (126) support over the PSR2000 , yet I personally haven't experienced any polyphony problems playing on my PSR2000. Afterall, I got only 10 fingers.

Scott

[This message has been edited by Scottyee (edited 06-07-2002).]

Scott:

Hmmmm... as suggested, when I call up the step record mode on my Yamaha 9000 Pro it says 384ppq (this is also clearly visible in the illustrations in 9000's manual under step recording). It gets even weirder if you go to chord step recording: 2ppq ! I'm not at all sure if the 384ppq rate would also apply to real-time recording. It's possible that this could be a limitation of the current OS rather than the processor also. This is interesting but inconclusive. There is no other reference to the 9000's ppq rate anywhere else I know of. I'd like to know more.

There's no doubt that the PSR2000 is using breaking technology, such as the XF Scorch music display I envy. But I wouldn't under-rate the importance of polyphony, especially with Yamaha keyboards. Many sounds are layered by default (such as organ patches) and then you can add layers yourself (piano/strings for example). Add sustain pedal and accompaniment or song file playback with your performance and you've got far more than ten-fingers worth of polyphony happening. That's why I added the PF expansion card (64) and the DX expansion card (16) to my 9000 Pro (126 stock: 206 note polyphony total) to accomodate everything I can do at the same time with ten fingers, two feet and one brain.

maybe off topic, but about the ppq issue:
I thought the stability of the clock was far more important than the ppq spec.

In other words a 96 ppq sequencer with high quality rock solid crystal clock, would be superior to a 960 ppq spec sequencer with a cheap varying resonator put in to save money.

Scott's was not a valid comparison because he quantised an existing recording. The test would be to play into a 1920ppq sequencer, and then play again into a 120 ppq sequencer of equal clock stability. If the clock was good enough I don't think you would hear the difference.

PC sequencers are another thing because there you divide down from a pc clock that might not be of best stability in the first place, so have more chances of error magnification maybe, and need high ppq never to notice? Some people still say their Atari's were the most rock solid sequencer of all...

If this is not the case, why have we not been talking for years about our sequencers not being capable of reproducing the exact nuances of our performances?

I have never read any perceptual studies that the human ear can devolve down to microseconds, which is the implication if this all were to be true?

Maybe this is more of a paper spec than real world issue?

I think BOTH are important.



Alex, A while back, a couple of friends (musicians) and I performed a similar test to the one you suggested. We recorded to both a software sequencer (Logic Audio-Mac), both (at 96ppq) and (at 960+ ppq) and compared the recordings. We noticed a substantial difference. The 960 ppq sequence captured the original playing (timing) spontaneous nuances (spark) whereas the 96 ppq version sounded quantized (flat), and somehow lacked the pizazz of the original performance.



I definitely agree with you re: the Atari. I owned the Atari 1040ST, and the timing was rock solid. Ahhh .. . Those were the days . . . too bad Atari ignored the musician market and focussed on games instead.



Well, I can't speak for others here, but I've been raising this issue for some time now (do a search on past postings). It just seemed other people here weren't that interested. In the meantime, a number of musicians in the pro music community have been complaining about just this issue for quiate a while, and now the manufacters have finally begun to listen. I just hope Technics has listened too, and will implement a MUCH HIGHER timing resolution in their KN7000.



Alex: I'm not relying on scientific studies. I use MY EARS and can hear the difference. My musician friends concur (after testing/hearing for themselves).



Well, if this is true, then WHY are both software and hardware manufacters now steadily increasing the timing resolutions on their sequencers then? Just for laughs?

I guess this all boils down to your ears. If it doesn't matter to you, then fine. Hey, some people are happy as a clam with MP3 sound quality. But as a musician, I want a midi sequencer which can MOST accurately record & reproduce the original keyboard performance.

Scott

Hi Scott,
no argument that ears are the final arbiter, but without double blind testing, ears are notoriously unreliable.

the logic test was again not a valid comparison because performed on a pc sequencer, as I have tried to explain I don't believe that this is directly comparable in such a simplistic sense to the keyboard case without taking all other factors into account. I'm not sure that a pc sequencer at 96 ppq would be much use at all?

the really good question would be what was the clock and ppq on the old atari to be as good subjectively as it was?

you make the common mistake of putting words and implications into my mouth which I did not state, I raised a series of questions, and did not make any of the absolute assertions that you reply to. I respect your opinions but you do yourself no favours by replying to assertions I never made...

I never stated that one value of ppq was sufficient, or did not need to be improved upon, or that future improvements were not neccessary, or that manufacturers should not increase resolution. In fact I gave no hint of what my stance on any of these subjects are.

The main reason resolutions are rising is because micros get faster for the same money and it is easily possible for the manufacturers with each new generation of chips at any given price point.

I merely made the perfectly valid point that the forums have not been full of complaints that keyboard sequencers before the days of 1920 ppq somehow had noticeable problems that meant a great many people felt they did not mirror the nuances of their original performances. If you made some posts about this subject in the past and no-one else was interested, you have provided the proof of exactly what I originally said.

Also that originally you drew a conclusion from an experiment that was totally flawed by quantising an existing recording. This still remains the case.

with respect,

Alec,

I apologize if I came off rather strong, as I meant no disrespect. I can see both yours and UD's points now, that quantizing an existing recording (from 1,920 to 96) is not an accurate comparison, but as I mentioned in my last reply, I had also, on another occasion, made 2 separate recordings of the same song (same sequencer) at 2 different resolutions and both myself (and friends) heard subtle yet significant differences, so I still stand by 'initial' findings that the higher the resolution, the better.

Alec, I realize you're an avid Technics KN Keyboard fan (as I have been too), and just wonder if your views may be influenced by the fact that Technics arranger keyboard sequencers have still yet to support a higher midi note timing resolution than 96 ppq.

I of course realize that sequencer midi clock accuracy is equally important, but with 'equal' clock accuracy taken into account, I still believe that the higher the note (timing) resolution, the more accurate the recorded result.

I look forward to discussing (debating?) this issue further in a shared effort to find the best way to encourage the manufacters to further improve the life like 'realism' of arranger keyboard styles and midi sequencer recordings as well. This way, we ALL win !

Scott

Best regards,

Scott

Hi Scott,
no disagreements at all here. I am not defending anything, never even mentioned Technics equipment, just pointing out that you cannot define different equipment with different qualities and operating systems by a simple figure of ppq without investigating all the underlying differences that also contribute to a subjective result.

Maybe an analogy would be the difference between a 128 poly and 64 poly instrument. Everybody assumes that the 128 must be better from a paper spec, to then find that the voices are made up of twice as many partials, and the dropout algorithms are worse, so in real life use may cop out subjectively more noticibly earlier.

As for me being biased for Technics, I could equally accuse you of puffing this psr2000 ppq thing, when since the psr2000 was launched, and before you highlighted the issue I can't remember anyone spontaneously and without forewarning remarking Wow! the sequencer on this machine sounds much superior to anything that has gone before...

I doubt that we will see much hard research on what ppq is neccessary because technology has overtaken the subject and the high ppqs will become a norm in keyboards just because cheap micros make it easy and possible. If so that is great!
However every feature is a cost/quality compromise, and I doubt if many people will notice the difference spending money on the sequencer ppq, whereas I'm pretty sure that everyone would notice the difference if the money was spent on wave rom, for instance.

But I still feel the pc case is quite different to the keyboard case, since have seen much comment on pc sequencer 'solidity' over the years but very few complaints about keyboard sequencers. Thus I feel these 2 cases have different sets of criteria, that a simple ppq cannot explain.

all the best

You guys are really splitting hairs. I have NEVER had a sequencer that could not reproduce my exact nuances in an UNquantized state. Forget the tests - if you try something that sounds wrong to you, THEN look for an alternative. Don't look for problems before they exist. It's just like the MP3 vs. CD comparisons. IN certain situations, they are virtually the same ... especially when played through a comercial sound system. I'm sure a real audiophile could tell the differance in a high end studio setup, but in a normal "PA" - forGETTAbout it !

I was gonna say that Dave.
DonM

I agree this is really splitting hairs.

Anyway, I think we have to take the tempo into consideration too. A particular ppq that is enough at a higher tempo might not be enough at a lower tempo as the resolution of the sequencer drops (in terms of time, not in terms of 1/4 notes) with dropping tempo, but that of the ear stays.

I have read in a book sometime in the past that the resolution of the ear is about 5 milliseconds. The lowest tempo I can achieve on my PA80 is 30 1/4 notes per minute which boils down to 2 seconds between two beats. If we want to have 5 millisecond resolution the ppq should be 400. The actual ppq on the keyboard is 384 which is pretty close. If we want to have 1 millisecond between ticks instead of 5 milliseconds we need 2000 ppq at that tempo (lowest) which is pretty close to PSR2000's ppq. I think they have come up with these numbers with some models in their minds.

Assuming we normally play around 100 1/4 notes per minute, I think 120 ppq is pretty marginal. Depending on the type of the music you play (How much quantization you tolerate..., because strictly speaking it's quantized anyway) and the tempo the inherent quantization might or might not be noticeable.

Another thing we should get into consideration is the latency. At least I have noticed one percussion instrument on my PA80 that sounds late if I put it exactly at the beat. I have to pull it forward in the sequence to get it sound in time. I can also recall working with Roland MC500 (if I remember the model number correctly) back in late 80's that could not keep time tight enough at complicated fill-ins, because it took so much processor time and started to slip.

I think it's sort of a dance between many factors and the easiest is to put them all in a black box, listen to it playing and let the ears decide if it fits your music.

Shiral

[This message has been edited by shiral (edited 06-08-2002).]

if I just record a song in the prs9000 " quick record" ... is this in ppq or is it unquiantized! I'm alittle confused ... but if the average listener can't hear the difference ...it's not a big deal. If I turn quantizing off ... should the prs9000 play back exactly what I play or will the sequencer itself quantize what i record?
Sounds like you guys can answer that question... because I don't know?

there is another reason why these values are chosen - ppqs are chosen to reflect a true division of musical notes. Thus 96, 192, 384 etc are the true perfect ppq values, others are not.

120 is not perfect because a dotted 32nd note does not trigger perfectly between ticks.

96 ppq resolves 128th note triplets and runs out of resolution at 256th notes, maybe this puts it in perspective!

I think I confused you when I said "inherent quantization". It's normally not something we can hear unless the ppq is really low. The quick answer is, if the quantization is off we can not hear a difference between what was played during the recording and what is played back on the sequencer.

The digital equipment live and work in a quantized "world". The quantization is so small that we see/hear it as continuous. In this case, suppose you play at a tempo that plays 1 quarter note a second and the ppq is 1000. Then there are 1000 ticks spread between two adjacent quarter notes (1 second). You can record a note at --let's say-- 100th tick or 101st tick, but a moment between these two ticks is not available for recording. That is what I meant when I said "inherent quantization". Nevertheless, this is so small that the human ear can not notice if it were played at 100th tick or 101st tick; it just sounds like a continuous time line to us.

When you do quantize using a function on the keyboard, we make it coarse. e.g. we dictate a set of rules: e.g. 250th tick is available for a note and then 500th tick is available for the next note, but none between 250th and 500th. If there is note at 240, push it onto 250th (or close to that depending on the other options you have set) and so on. This is what we normally referred to as quantization.

Shiral


[This message has been edited by shiral (edited 06-08-2002).]

So if I understand correctly! If I do a quick record on the prs9000 it will play back exactly what I just played with the "spark" others have referred to!

I used to quantize the drums a few years ago... but never my bass or other instruments because it sounded artifical ... stilted. I guess others are quantising the other instuments so I can see that they need very high ppq! (to avoid the stilted feeling)
So Uncle Dave and I don't quantize the other instruments so we don't have to care how much quantization there is. Is this correct?
P.S If I have a song made in the prs2000 quantized at ppq 1990 ...and then put that midi file in the psr 9000 would it play back exactly the same as on the psr2000? Or would the limitation in psr9000 ppq also effect playback?



[This message has been edited by rgtaa (edited 06-08-2002).]

rgtaa,

According to Scott's early post PSR9000/9000 Pro has either 192 ppq or 480 ppq. If the ppq is around or above 384, I would not worry about it at all. I would not worry about 192 ppq either unless I am going to record/play at really low tempo values like 30 or 40 quarter notes per minute. (Still I can get around that by doubling the tempo value to 60 or 80 and cutting the playing rate by half to compensate). As UD and Don said, if it sounds right to me, I would forget all the numbers and go ahead with the recording.

Regards,
Shiral

OK. I certainly have no trouble at all with 384 ppq as I'm sure it will sufficiently capture all the needed music nuances, but I still think 96 ppq is only marginally acceptable (at best). An important element which can make the difference between a good musician and a great musician is how an indiviual player phrases 'ever so slightly' behind/ahead of the beat, or anticipates or plays a rhythmic accent/groove. That's a crucial part of what gives legendary musicians their signature sound. Unfortunately, when you record at 96 ppq, you can lose this.

According to Denny Starry, the 9000Pro's Song sequencer supports 384ppq, but it's Style Pattern Sequencer only 96 ppq. 96 ppq is a bit disappointing, especially since a primary feature of an arranger keyboard is for its live sounding styles.
Enough said, I stated my case (yet again) .

- Scott

if you like "live" then turn quantizing "off" !

hopefully yamaha hired "professionals" that could keep a beat! when making their styles ... and were not "drinking or drugging too much"!!!!

but seriously, I now understand what you are getting at Scottyee!


[This message has been edited by rgtaa (edited 06-08-2002).]

I totally agree that 96 ppq ON A PC is entirely problematical, depending on a whole host of variables.
However as to the case that our modern KEYBOARD sequencers have somehow been subjectively losing all the sparkle of all our performances - not proven.