Hi, I'm new to this forum. I need serious help shopping for a new "workstation" to suit my needs best. I have a ton of questions. If anyone can provide anwers to any or all of these questions I would be very happy. The dealers in this area don't allow me to compare/shop easily because they are eager to lean towards their favorite choice or what they are trying to sell the most of. I have checked a few past threads comparing some of these keyboards, but I still have some specific questions I need answered.

I am confused. The MOTIF is supposed to be the Rolls Royce, right?. Why does it not have all the sweet horn voices like the 9000 Pro and even the PSR-550 have? Did I miss them when I was looking at the MOTIF in the store? I only found the MOTIF having the sweet flute.

The 9000 is advertised as being a "workstation". Which is what the Fantom and Karma are advertised as. Does the sequencer in the 9000 really compare to these others or the MOTIF?

Are the sounds in the 9000 PRO and PSR-550 the same (sampling fequency as the ones used in the MOTIF?

I am told that the 9000 and PSR keyboards give less "control" over the music/arrangement than what a composer/arranger can do on the MOTIF. My questions is: does the MOTIF's performances (combinations) have features that act similar to auto-accompaniement? I realize they don't probably orchestrate the whole piece for you, but if I were to use it occassionally to make quick demos before going into the real orchestration process, is there away to set up arpeggio performances combis with a bass, drum, and pad that will follow a chord played in the keys?

The reason I ask these questions is because the Karma and Fantom seem to have quasi-auto-accompaniment type perfomances/combis. Can the MOTIF do what these other keyboards do?

Is the MOTIF better than these others? The TRITON boasts "dual polyphonic" arrpeggiators. Can someone tell me what that means and if the MOTIF does the same thing but calls it something different in the manual, or if it doesn't, am I missing anything not having this feature.

KORG makes both the TRITON and the KARMA. Besides the "karma" technology, lack of sampling, and less voices, are the TRITON and KARMA essentially the same?

I have the Motif, the PA80 ( with the triton sound engine ) and have had several PSR boards as well.

Let me start with the sounds. This is of course VERY subjective but for me.... I have never placed a lot of emphasis or importance on the "sweet " or "cool" thing. What technical meanings do those terms have anyway ? Having said that, the sax and horn voices on the Motif aren't quite as good to me as those on the 9000. I am not sure if it is the sample itself or just the way synth parameters and effects are set between the 2 boards. If you're going to focus a lot on acoustic voices, particularly horns and reeds, the Motif may not have the best of them. Still, it has the best piano sample I've heard on any synth ( NO apologies to Kurzweil ), the best Rhodes sound I've heard as well. The acoustic guitars are outstanding. The drums are excellent. Organs are decent, but don't blow me away. For the few sounds I don't like, if I don't like the comparable sound better on my Korg PA80, my software sampling devices more than make up for it. Where this thing really shines is in synth voices too. I find synth editing in general to be a lot easier to understand and navigate as compared to Korg's way of doing it. I like Triton sounds, but I find that overall I favor the Motif's sounds. Of course each has its' strengths and weaknesses in the different instrument types

Control over arrangement ? The 9000 is an arranger, not a workstation, although it, like the PA80, has many workstation like features. A true arranger is a great place to start new ideas and hear it all together. The thing is, unless you modify the patterns in a sequencer, the patterns stay the same. Arps are dependent on the notes you play. As far as the arps and combis on the Motif, no they will not work in the same way as the Karma, with multiple arps or GE's
( which for lack of a better way to explain are basically algorithim driven, multi arps ). You can make a "performance that will include arp driven drums and play left hand bass and right hand rythym ./chords, but the Mo does not have patterns that respond to chord data as an arranger would ( or in a similar way to what the Karma does ). The arps are very useful for making phrases on each track that can be put together to make a song. The Motif suits me well because this is exactly how I prefer to compose. I prefer to work on one track a piece at a time and build it in a sequencer or... play the part in real time.

As far as the sequencer goes, it is great for chaining patterns together, and for making user arps and phrases, but for any real editing, the Mo is like any other synth sequencer.. that is... not comparable to the editing abilities of an external sequencer. Just as the PA80 sequencer is excellent for doing certain pattern specific operations, much better than an external, but as far as song creation and basic midi editing , it pales in comparison to the lesser versions of cakewalk sequencers and even a couple of the freeware ones.

I tried the Fantom and compared it to the Mo when I was looking for a new workstation. Since I already had an arranger my prioritiy was to focus more on the sounds and editing capabilities than the "accomp" or groove features. I think that both are very good workstations, and the Fantom is simple to navigate to boot. The Mo sounds just grabbed me a little more in the end. The same would be true for me if I compared the Motif vs the Triton, ( if I didn't already have the PA80. )

The Karma uses the Triton sound engine, uses the same add-in sounds. Thus, you can add 32MB of sounds to the 32MB already built in. In addition, you can add in a 6-voice MOSS card, which adds modeling synthesis to the Karma. I thought the Karma had the same number of voices as the Triton. However, the Karma functionality replaces the dual polyphonic arpeggiators of the Triton. The Triton arpeggiator patterns can be converted to Karma patterns, giving you more control than you would have with them on a Triton.

Like an arranger, but unlike the Fantom and Motif, the Karma has chord recognition. Unlike all these keybaords, the Karma generates patterns in real time algorithmically. Arranger keyboards "tend" to be used to emulate familiar playing styles, while the Karma "tends" to sound less conventional.

None of the keyboards you mention orchestrate a whole piece for you. One way to do this is use Band In A Box to generate a chord progression and, if you do not like the way BIAB orchestrates the piece, use it to drive an arranger or the Karma.

It is hard to tell, but it sounds to me like you will want both good sounds and chord recognition. I would think a high-end arranger like the 9000Pro would be your best bet.

Cliff, thanks for the info. I think I am less interested in the auto-accompaniment than being able to thoroughly compose and arrange my music from every aspect. I just liked the idea of using the auto-acc. for quick demos. My problem is that I want very interesting atmospheric synth pads and sounds, and good grooves, but I also want some good horns. I guess I am asking for what eveyone would love to have. I guess the reason Yamaha didn't put all the "sweet" voices in the MOTIF is because they want you to have to buy both. This leads me to another idea. Does the PLG150VL Virtual Acoustic Plug-in Board with the breath controller give more realism to the sounds? Are the VA plug-ins sounds better anyway and so I don't need to worry about the absence of the 9000pro sweet voices if I add this to the MOTIF?

I've pretty much decided the KORG horn sounds are no good anyway so I should probably rule out the TRITON and the KARMA, but I want to know what I'm missing with these "polyphonic arpeggiators." I still don't understand what they do that the MOTIF's won't. Can anyone explain that?

FANTOM seems to be a less powerful version of the MOTIF, but essentially functioning pretty much the same with its sequencing abilities and groove generator.

I guess if I really need the "sweet" voices I will just buy the PSR-550. Are the sounds the same sounds as 9000pro just less of them? Also I can use its auto-accompaniment features for my "quick demo" keyboard and leave the heavy stuff to the MOTIF.

I still have a long way to go on all of this. I greatly appreciate any and all who contribute to my quest for knowledge.

Thanks

Hi seanbaker,
First I would like to welcome you to our "family" , You won`t find a nicer group of people anywhere
Now to your question, I own the PSR-2000 , it is an arranger KB not a workstation `per-say. I think the 9000-Pro would be the way to go ,IMO, because you can do "arranger things" like Acom & Splits however it does not have an appreggiator, so I think it would be hard to simulate some instruments [ie: guitar]. The "polyiphany" is 128 notes which gives you room to work and you get the "Yamaha-sound" which is very good (you need speakers with the 9000Pro) The "Psr-550" is a very good KB but poly. 32.
I have played the "Karma" and I liked some things like the appreggiator and "build-quality" but it is not an arranger it is a "workstation - only" . It realy comes down to "live perform or studio work" IMO
An "appreggiator" lets you do things like "strumming" and if your playing a chord, {ie: C -chord, it would play C-E-G / in any way you program it --ie: C-chord , E-G-C}
I hope this helps in some way , and best of luck , also please let us know how you made out with your KB quest
jedi

jedi raises some good points. The arps in the Mo do make for some nice guitar strumming simulations that are hard to duplicate in real time on a keyboard. Add that to a program like Rythym and Chords for Sonar, and you'd have a lot of variety. I've made some decent user arps that work well for guitar pieces for the Motif by taking the guitar accomp parts from a few of the better arranger patterns. I am going to try making some with some of the data produced by Rythym and Chords as well.

If auto accomp is the way you wanna go and premier sounds are important, then although I own ( and really like ) the PA80 arranger, I'd be hard pressed to argue against choosing a 9000 pro if you can afford it. It depends also on how much cost is a factor for you. One reason I don't have the 9k pro is the price. For a little more than the price of a new 9000 pro, I was able to get the PA80 and the Motif. For studio use I think I'd give the 9k pro a slight nod over the PA80, but not over the PA80 and Motif together. If you'd rather go the workstation route, and you aren't thrilled with the Triton sounds overall, then I'd have to lean towards recommending the Motif. I guess I just prefer the sounds over the Fantom's . Fantom seems to be an easier board to navigate and get around on though

I haven't tried any of the expansion boards just yet for the Motif, so I can't give you a good answer on that one yet, but I am going to purchase the VL board and a wind controller soon.

so..like what IS the difference between an "arranger" and a "workstation"? The 9000pro is called a workstation, but isn't more an arranger. ?????

I guess if the sequencing capacity is strong enough I may choose the 9000 over the MOTIF since I am already accustomed to how PSRs work. Is this a valid statement? Or is it silly to think if using the 9000 to sequence arrangements????

Check out some of the tunes I made using (believe it or not) a PSR-500!
www.seanbaker.com/songs.html

Maybe hearing what I've done will help you all tell me what to do. Though I was able to make pretty slick sequences on the PSR-500 getting away from the pre-programmed styles, it was REALLY hard to do and program the rhythms and all that. Though I am used to how the PSR's work, I wonder if something more professional like the MOTIF would give me more control(flexibility) over the arrangement. On all my pieces from that link, I did not use the built in auto-accompaniment--I built up the drums, bass, and other stuff from scratch and then occasionally used the chording to create the arrangement. But even then, most of the time I would layer the parts track by track which on the PSR-500 meant only a few tracks.

I would like to find a keyboard that has more up-to-date sounding synth pads and atmospheres, good groove making capabilities, AND realistic acoustic instruments especially horns. Should I get the MOTIF and add the Virtual Acoustic Plugin (if anyone knows anything about that)????

Still, what's the deal with the TRITON's polyphonc arpeggiators? What does that mean????


I am enjoying all this input and help, but I still need some apparantly. Thanks for sticking with me and all my thousands of comparitive questions.

Hi seanbaker,
It kind`a goes like this, If it has "speakers built-in" then it is almost always an "arranger KB" with the known exception of the 9000PRO. An arranger can do many things [ie: KB splits/ left & right also auto acomp. breaks and fill-in`s. A "work station" can do spilts as well but usualy does not have auto acomp. with breaks and fill-in`s unless you program them in yourself. Think of it like this, you turn on your psr500 and start playing a song, you pick a rythum or style chose a "voice" and your playing!! Now with a workstation if you wanted to do the same you would program a style and acomp. go back to the beginning of the song and play the "melody" in real time. The 9000pro allows you to do either [ie: you can add your choise of speakers (and subwoffer) and play it like you would your psr550. Or you could program your styles and accomp. , and then go back and play the melody in real-time. The 9000pro is unique where it allows three spilts so you could program your styles and accopm. then play in real-time 3 different instruments. If you follow this link it will take you to the 9000Pro web-page at "Yamaha" : http://www.yamaha.com/cgi-win/webcgi.exe/DsplyModel/?gPPK000059000+PRO
I hope this helps going from a psr500 to a 9000pro might be a "steep learning curve" but I`m sure that with your psr500 experiance it won`t be to "steep"
Best of luck, and keep posting we`re here to help (someday I `ll be asking for your help ) Keep in touch and good luck
jedi

Well, plenty has been said about the capabilities of the different keyboards, but what exactly are your "needs"?

Marck, I guess this might help. I work a lot with both traditional styles of music and more synthesized, electronic groove oriented material. It sounds like I'm trying to have my cake and eat it too by finding one all-inclusive keyboard. It sounds as though the 9000 is better for traditional styles whereas the MOTIF might be a better choice for the other stuff. If so, my concern would be whether or not the 9000's audio quality is suitable for the studio as the MOTIF is. Also coming more from the PSR tradion, I wonder which of the two would be easier for me to learn.