In the past, I have lauded the PA1x Pro over the Tyros 2 in most of the important areas. There is one area, however, where the Tyros 2 is clearly better; that is, chord recognition and response time. The Tyros 2 is also more forgiving of a chord where all notes are not hit at precisely the same time. Also, the T2 is more predictable (like the G1000) with simple progressions like say a min chord with descending bass (Cm7, Cm7/B, Cm7/Bb, Cm7/A). I am, of course, using Bass Inversion on both boards. Of course I've tried all the available fingerings (1,2,3finger, expert) with no joy on the PA1x. Alternate fingering is awkward, unnatural, and does not help, anyway. It appears that one note in the chord is exaggerated and changes the feel/sound of the chord in the progression. Not a major problem but some tunes (like say, Funny Valentine) just don't sound right in some of the styles most suited to it. Just thought I'd mention it since I'm usually bashing the T2 (well not really BASHING so much as negatively comparing it to the Korg). Another thing, and this is important if you plan to use the Tyros 2 professionally, you MUST significantly tweak the voices and volumes in the factory styles to realize the full potential of this board. Some time ago I loaded someone's tweaked version of the factory styles but never really listened to them until recently. The difference between them and the factory originals is nothing short of astounding. It's like a completely different board and infinitely more useable than before. Just thought I'd pass this along.

Peace,

chas

Hi,

I own a Pa1X and played several time a Tyros 1 (not 2): I don't feel all the differences you mention, there are a lot of similar positions they share. That in any case seems more than what Roland offer in G-70, right ?

Just a question: but are you complaining how the chord is recognized (the chord position) or just what it is played back by the arranger once the chord has been recognized ?

Regards

Booby, not so much a complaint as an observation. My Tyros 2 and Pa1x Pro are side by side which makes for an easy a/b comparison of these types of things. The Yamaha responds to chord transistions pretty much the same as my old G1000 (using Bass Inversion) but the Korg responds differently in SOME instances. Of the two, I prefer the Yamaha (although I can live with the PA1x - it responds similarily MOST of the time). I stand by my observation that the Yamaha is more forgiving of small miscues in chord fingering (striking). I still say that if I could only have one board, I'd choose the PA1x Pro but I can no longer say that it is a clear overall winner as there are too many great features that I like on both boards.

chas

Wrong! G-70 chord recognition is better then the others: it has several types of chord recognition that can fit different needings and keyboard settings.
It is able to recognize a lot of different types of chords and adapt the played styles accordingly.
As cgiles says, already G-1000 is comparable to (or better than) Tyros and Korg, and G-70 is much more improved.
Moreover I know that Roland has some patents in chord recognition techniques, and this could be one of the reasons why they work better.

As far as pro jazz style 'chord voicing' recognition goes, Roland remains the only top arranger kb manufacterer 'behind the 8 ball'. Until they finally come on board to join: Technics, Yamaha, Ketron, and now Korg, in recognizing rootless style jazz chords which allow us to play (live) our arrangers in the jazz piano style of (Bill Evans, Diana Krall, etc), I won't be purchasing a Roland arranger. Come on Roland . . . get with it!

Scott

You can also put Gem in the same boat as Roland re jazz chord voicings. When would both Gem and Roland get with the program?

Scott, you're correct and I agree with you except that most arranger players don't use jazz voicings (and the manufacturers know this). In fact they sound downright weird with most of the pop styles. Most of the styles seem to work best with simple chords (an exception would be "BEBOP" which seems to work better with jazz voicings on both keyboards). And although it would be nice, most arranger players AND their audiences are not really into Bill Evans (genius though he was). Hey, we both think 'round midnight, Dear ol' Stockholm, A Love Supreme, Ruby, my dear, etc. are great tunes but it's unlikely you're going to hear them at the local bar, nursing home, church social, coffee house, etc.; at least, not two nights in a row. But hey, before the real gig starts, warming up with a 300bpm rendition of Cherokee might impress a cute waitress .

chas

Chas, a big tip will impress a cute waitress, much more!!!

These Jazz chord voicing possiblities are not only suited for hard core jazz tunes, but the classic standards: from Gershwin, Cole Porter, to the Beatles, Stevie Wonder, Elton John, & Billy Joel, as well, achieving the professional sound, to which all the fore-mentioned composers use in their playing as well. These aren't merely esoteric jazz chords, but chords recognized & played by most pro 'jazz influenced' pop, r&b, and latin piano players worldwide.

I utilize these jazz style chord voicing (as well as standard chord types as well) on nearly all my website song demos. The ability for an arranger to recognize the widest range of chord types & voicings possible simply offers more creative playing options, and of which my audiences (including cute waitresses ) appreciate. - Scott

Hands off the waitress Scott, I saw her first

I find that the chat up line 'Do you want to see my big organ' works wonders in the clubs.