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 !)