From reading the post when the G70 first came out and now the new Tyros 2, it seems as if you have to play with the EQ and the volume settings to get really really good sounds.

I wonder if the manufacturers are rushing to get their new keyboards out and not doing a real good final eq and volume check so that the keyboard sounds real reall good out of the box?

Or have we just come to exspect more each time a new keyboard comes out?

I think they are in a way. They seem to rush the boards (if they have user upgradable operating systems). This way they can get the board out fast, sell as many as they can, and fix the problems along the way with OS upgrades.

The G70 is a good example. It's not just in the arranger department either. Some synths have been rushed as well. The Alesis Fusion is an excellent example. When first released that board had bugs crawling all over the thing (HUGE ONES TOO). However Alesis released several OS updates and that board has become a powerhouse. Plus they're talking about yet another upgrade with more and better features.

Squeak

They probably do, and it's not surprising. Present marketing mantra is that time to marke is more important than product quality, and not just when it comes to keyboards. I have a car which has received a third recall notice. Software is routinely released with defficiencies, and you are forced to download patches from the manufacturers' web sites.

So I think that the fact that Tyros 2 has had only one minor software update is more of an abberation rather than the norm, and the trend to be expected is that you will have to install software updates.

In a way by putting the operating software into rewriteable memory, manufacturers are doing us a disservice - they take it as a permission to release half-baked instruments with the intention to patch them up later. The upside is that the software upgrades may also add new features - look at Ketron, Korg, and Roland - all of those had added features with the major software upgrades.

But if you are an early adopter (buying a keyboard shortly after its release), you should be prepared to be a beta-tester, and live, at least temporarily, with the half-baked machine.

Regards

Well if putting out a keyboard that is not quite finished is motivation for manufacturers to have OS upgrades with fixes and new features then that could be a +.

But if they are not going to put-out any real updates to the OS then.... .

Roland and Korg seem to be the leaders in putting out meaningful OS updates to their flagship arrangers.

The sheer complexity of most recent top-end instruments makes it very difficult for manufacturers to come up with totally bug free units on initial release day, without protracting the launch date beyond what may be commercially realistic. Within reason, I can live with this, provided that:

- Any bugs are minor and of a fairly obscure nature, not affecting the main operational functionality or stopping the unit from being used in an everyday sense.

- The manufacturer has good lines of communication with his customers and is prompt in dealing with reported bugs

- Bugs are sorted first, and free of charge, before any major enhancements are made to the OS.

- Minor free of charge enhancements are included on the back of what is essentially a bug fixing OS release, particularly where they improve flexibility or convenience

Essentially, you should be able to trust the instrument on a gig from day one, even if the odd bug is encountered when doing at-home preparation work whilst setting up the various user presets you intend to use.

One thing I have never really understood is why many manufacturers seem to make their own, and their customers, lives more difficult by "uninventing" OS features and functions that they had already perfected on a previous model. This practice causes grief to the user, who has got used to a certain facility being present and working well. From the manufacturers point of view, it increases the potential for bugs to be introduced into the redesign and also must lead to more expensive testing being required. Everyone loses. To my mind (as a software developer) it makes more sense to build on what went before, whilst refining, improving and enhancing. You would normally only scrap what you already had if there was something seriously and incurably wrong with it functionally from day one.



[This message has been edited by MikeTV (edited 12-07-2005).]

You need to keep in mind that the manufacturers are in the business of NOT giving you what you want because if they gave you everything you want in a keyboard, you wouldn't buy another one for a very, very long time and they would go out of business.

It's the "planned obsolescence" model of business the GM executive who went over after the War to help them reconstruct their busnesses taught them, and they learned it VERY well.

Tom

------------------
Bigger is not always better

Mike,
I gree with the complexity thing and all you've said. But we have to keep in mind that these companies are there to make a profit, and you don't generally make a profit by fixing mistakes, you get a profit by introducing "new" features.

"New" features may be not new, and they may me no real "features" at all, and maybe not cater to all the actual needs of the customers, but they fill all the blanks in marketing's new brochures.

In life, you tend to forget the bad things that happened in the past, so after spending a lot of time with say the PSR 9000, after you buy something new you will quickly forget its shortcomings and keep in memory something good, say its good strings.

In the company I work (software house ) us guys in sales are constantly in "battle" with the developers. We need new things introduced so we can lure customers, they need to prove they are able to do a "fine" job. The truth is somewhere in between.

All very good responses.

I don't mind so much the minor bugs or the lac of some features. But what I have been noticing is the final output of the sounds are not where they should be (according to reviews on the G70 and the Tyros 2).

It seems as if users have to tweek the EQ and volume settings to get good sounds out of the keyboards.

Is it that we all have our individual taste and so no manufacturer can get the final sound for everyone? Or is it that we have reach a stage where manufacturers in the rush to get the newest keyboard out, they have resolved to leave the final EQ and sound adjustments to the user?

OK, I agree that a keyboard with built-in speakers has to sound decent (don't know what that is by the way) right out of the box. But the sound as listened to through a PA-system might be another story. It's a fake to think that there are speaker systems that sound really flat. They all add some coloring to the overall sound and a manufacturer can't do much about that. I play my Pa1X-pro through different PA-systems and I tune them all in a different manner. Of coarse to my own liking, someone else might tune it in a totally different way.

The first reply is the correct one. My Tyros 2 has a nice Graphic Equalizer with five presets; of course you can customize them and save the result of your work; likewise, the compressor too has five presets, and you have four more slots to save your favorite settings, which will depend on your ear, your musical taste, the kind of music you play and -last but not least- your speaker system and the listening environment.
Ideally, you should change your settings every time you perform in a different place!