http://bbs.cndzq.com/UploadFile/TopicFile/20079191412458.jpg
http://www.cndzq.com/pic/image.swf?u=http://bbs.cndzq.com/UploadFile/TopicFile/20079191412458.jpg&.swf

Taike

Hmmmm, looks interesting

WOW!!!!!


Now thats an arranger KB!!! Oh Yeah!!

Gotta love those faders for the 8 accomp channel volumes.

one thing i am not too sure about though is for the styles and sound categories, you need to switch to get to the bottom batch. why couldn't they just add the extra row of buttons??

Good question...
Also... just two fill-ins (and a break-fill)? No wonder that the transition is not smooth...

Good question...

Are the fills tied to what variation you are in (and you get a choice of two - VERY good idea!), or are there really only two fills and a Break/Fill per style?

For a four variation style, that doesn't seem like enough, especially compared to others that have four to seven fills...

You get 3 per variation (fill/2/break) plus if you press the button twice quickly it loops the variation. plus you can set it up so that a fill goes straight to whatever variation you want, or just follow the factory default.

just to clarify the above, when you press the "FILL" button twice quickly it loops the fill, thats what I meant to say.

miden the fills are fine ...& the loop fill is wonderful for certain songs...Thankyou KORG

hi Donny,
Yeah I know!!! thats what I was saying...Korg give you plenty to choose from, and are very flexible when it comes to what you actually want to do.
Dennis (26 days to go!)

Dennnis please keep us uptp date ....Only 26 days OMg I couldnt sleep waiting
What a great early Xmas present.

So, does this means that the PA2 X pro has EIGHT different fills (two for each of the four variations) and a break fill (same for all the variations)?

Hi Dreamer,
The Pa1xpro did, and I have no reason to doubt the PA2x is the same, certainly seems so from the data so far..For each variation(1 thru 4) you get 2 fills + a break pattern, so yes I suppose you could say there are 8, but remember 2 per variation, not 8 per variation, and that imho is more than enough for anyone!!! I found with the pa1x that i would use maybe 1 fill and a break for a song, very rarely did I use 2 or more.
Dennis

I will Donny, and I'm the same, the days just cannot go quick enough!!
Dennis

Thanks! Looks interesting indeed...

When is the PAx2 pro due out in the states?

Steve

hopefully very soon for the holidays.......many people I know are anxiously waiting for this unit !

After zooming in, I noticed "Player One" and "Player Two" with 5 buttons each below the LCD screen.

Anyone know what that is?

------------------
Larry
SynthZone Frapper

The 2 Sequencer / Midifile players

No, the 3 buttons, plays each one the same fill without regard to the variation is currently playing. In the style edit mode you have the option to edit only Fill1 / Fill2 / Fill3 tracks so the fills are only 3. This is really a shortcoming, I found on the Pa1X many styles that have fills that do not sound well when played with some variations, specially Var1. Since the style structure hasn't changed in Pa2X I think it will have the same problem.
Roland by contrast, uses a FillDown - FillUp concept that produces smooth transitions, and provides 6 fills for each style.

& DUAL Mp3 player also as long as the card is installed.

actually mrdave they do, the fill changes with which variation you play..My pa1xpro did. As I said some of the differences were slight, but they were different..the fill when playing vaiation 4 was different to the fill on variation 1, as was the fill on variation 1..mind you SOME of the styles did have pretty much the same fill, but they were some of the more sparse styles anyway..My only gripe was that the fills were usually too loud to suit either the previous variation or the next one. I have heard this is something that has been fixed with 3.0 Op Sys and on the PA2Xpro

Guys,
this fill thing is becoming really an issue.
Here is what I have found doing a search on Korgforums.com:

"The fills alot of the time don't fit; if you're on Variation 1 for example then the fill 'punches' in, instead of being configured for the variation, i.e. the instruments in the fill don't match the variation until you get to about variation 4, so they're kinda useless up till then, they're especially bad on slow and quiet styles sometimes, yet others seem Ok. Is there anyway to change this so that the fill changes with the variation, or will I need to make my own?

Actually, I wasn't strictly accurate. The rhythm is perfectly timed and does begin at the end of a measure, I was misled by the background; it's the instruments in the fill that's causing the problem, because they change instantly when you hit the fill button and some are vastly different to the variation, so it might be all pads for example and the instant you hit fill you get guitars, extra percussion etc etc, that doesn't blend. So I guess the question should be:

Is there any way to get fill variations, that correspond to whatever variation you're in, rather than being the same fill regardless of which variation you're using?"

"Yes, I know exactly what you're talking about when you said, the fill-in doesnt match the variation. For instance, Var 1 might only have bass, and just a simple drum rhytm, whereas Var 4 might have the full band going, and the actual fill-in is based on the full band too, so if you fill-in during Var 1, it sounds dodgy. As far as I know, unless you edit one of the 2 fill-ins to suit a certain Variation, its not possible to change it. Keyboard doesnt care what Variation you are in when you fill in. It will play the fillin the way its been recorded, regardless of what Variation you're in.


Unfortunately the Pa1X (pro) only has 2 fill-ins, besides the break, and that's too little to make all of the fills needed for most songs. Fill-in 1 in most cases is a simple one and fill-in 2 has more extended voicing. The styles are very good and lively programmed and don't bore me after three or four times repeating. But sometimes you need a clear passage to go to the chorus or bridge.
Sometimes I mute one or more acc tracks and use fill-in 2, but that's very user unfriendly. I wonder if someone has a more practical approach to make use of the limited number of fills to let them sound differently by tweaking the volumes or sounds."


"Thanks guys, the more I get into it the more I find 'useable' rather than not, it's got to be difficult to find the balance when there's 4 vars but only 2 fills, I'm getting used to it and don't actually think it'll be a problem at all when I come to tweaking my own performance settings."

So... where lies the truth?

Korg Pa 800 Fills are fine...its all about how you trigger them....I have have seen many people that CANT play correctly...hit fills at the wrong time or out of tempo because they have no rhythm.....then they blame the keyboard........

That is the point of an arranger; to make people who can not play sound good. Remember arrangers are for home users )that is what teh manufacturers tell us).

You can't sound good my friend unless you know how to play in the first place...
if you want the Keyboard to make you sound good vs your "playing ability" your off on the wrong track for sure.

I give up

Every arranger I have played, it doesn't matter one little bit WHEN you hit the button for a fill (other than too close to the end of the bar, when the fill will play in it's entirety on the NEXT bar), and it will ALWAYS be in perfect sync with the Variation. Korg's don't do that?

But it seems to me that the problem with what is reported with the fills seems to be far more a problem with how the styles are written, than how the OS triggers them (unless Donny's contention that you actually HAVE to hit them spot on rhythmically IS true). If you DO have two completely different fills for EACH variation (although those quotes seem to contradict this assumption - is there a difference in the number of fills between the PA1X and the PA2X and PA800?) this is wonderful news. BUT... if the style makers are not utilizing it, and staying with tried and tested workflow from earlier, two-fill arrangers, it won't be apparent.

But, after research from Korg's website, and the tech specs on the PA800 comes this:
Style controls: 4 Variations, 3 Fills, 3 Intros, 3 Endings, Synchro Start/Stop, Tap Tempo/Reset, Fade In/Out, Bass Inversion, Manual Bass, Tempo Lock, Memory, Accompaniment/Real Time Track Balance Volume, Accompaniment Mute, Drum Mapping, Snare & Kick Designation, Single Touch


SO... only two fills (if one is the Break/Fill) for four variations. This strikes me as VERY poor, compared to most other manufacturers (Yamaha 4 fills and a Break/Fill, Roland 6 fills, no Break/Fill but an assignable Break/Mute) and may go a VERY long way to explaining the 'jumpy' fills complaint from many users.

Two fills can't POSSIBLY get each transition to be smooth on any style that goes from a simple Var1 to a very busy Var4... That's basically ONE fill-up and ONE fill-down for the entire machine.

Me, I want even MORE than even Roland provide..! A dedicated fill for EVERY transition possible (that's 16 for a four Variation style including fill-to-same), but the thought of just two for an entire style just doesn't cut it, IMO...

I guess again its all personal preference...the PA800 fills are fine for me & MY needs....although I can understand that some have to have more & more which is quite alright if it suits Their needs....
Needs, Needs, 7 More Needs, is the catalyst for what these arrangers do ...some needs are small , some needs are big, some needs are senseless, & some needs are just egotistical fantasies for the I just have to have set. Whats on the market is what we have to choose and play the way we individually need to that will make us happy.......research it, demo it, play it, talk about it, argue about it, discuss it, brag about it, BS about it......do what right for you.....there will NEVER be just one perfect arranger for everyone.....so choose, play & be happy!

You're right Donny. There will never be a perfect arranger or one that suit everybodies personal needs or preferences. I think when a new product comes out though that we the consumer will choose to vote with our wallet on the product that most closely resembles the ideal product for our specific needs and the product that proves to be the most functional and musically cohesive. If I were thinking about purchasing a keyboard and one of the keyboards was musically consonant and the other was musically dissonant you can rest assured I would buy the one that was musically consonant. If enough people felt the same way and passed on the Pa series then maybe Korg would wake up and correct this anomaly with the fill-ins. Apparently the Pa series is selling well enough that Korg isn't willing to satisfy the rest of the buyers and potential buyers that have complained about the fill-in issue. It is possible that since the Pa series is extremely popular with Ethnic populations and sales of the Pa series are quite brisk in that area that Korg doesn't feel a need to resolve the issue because sales are adequate enough the way it is. As a side, go to youtube and type in Pa800 and you will see what I mean about the Pa series being a hot item with Ethnic populations. But if enough people passed on the Pa series you can bet that Korg would finally step in and resolve the issue or risk losing an even greater potential consumer base.

When there is talk about the Korg Pa1x/Pa2x having the same variation fill-in problems that were present on the Pa80 from years past it shows me (and others) that Korg still hasn't got it right and unfortunately many people who would have otherwise gotten the Pa2x may now have second thoughts because of these continuing unresolved issues. Does Korg care? Maybe not since this aberration with the variation fill-ins is still apparently going to be an issue with the Pa2x as well. Korg may not see the fill-in/variation issue as an aberration but many people who have purchased their Pa series arrangers see it differently. Just look on the Korg Pa Forums if you're unsure. So is the customer King in Korg's eyes? You decide, but in my estimation they are lacking somewhat - or a whole lot, depending on your point of view.

For my money I want something that is musically expressive, authentic sounding, and fluid in its operation. Getting two out of three on the Pa series is not too shabby I guess. But if it is not fixed on the Pa2x and/or Korg has no intention of fixing it with an OS update (if indeed the Pa2x has the problem), then I too shall pass on the Pa2x unfortunately. I know, I know, I'm picky.. but at four, count 'em 4 $$$$ Grand, it's better to be picky than sorry in my opinion. And at the same time "safe than sorry" also.

Best,
Mike

The fills are fine ....

Sliders ......Sliders !!!!!!


Oh My MORE SLIDERS!!!!!!!!!!

Correctomundo!

There is a Hugh difference between the former pa80 series vs the pa800 series features. Korg is addressing so many things that PLAYERS want compared to Yamaha ...
& when the dust settled I walked out with a KORG PA800 for my needs. I listened to my Uncle Dave & again as always he was sooooo right!

Some people are able to overlook the poorly done style fills...some aren't so easily fooled.

At the end of the day you have to spend time going through the detail of any new instrument before you buy. Thank God there are so many good boards out there we are spoiled for choice. The only comment i can make here that has not (as far as i can tell) been said, is that far too often i see what appears to be very minor issues with a brand of performance keyboard becomeing THE reason that it is overlooked. If having 3 fillin or 4 fillins is what tips the scale for you then fine . But dont overlook the other features that could make the world of difference to not just how you currently use arranger keyboards but also how you play.

If you listen to Rod Pooley (well established organist in UK and player of the Korg pa800 you would be hard pressed to see whether the PA series had just two fillins.Then after listening to the these performances ask yourself ' does 2 ,3,4,5, fillins really matter all that much ?'

Just my 2 cents

ps if any of you choose to by Rod's albums please email him and tell him i sent you !!! He doesnt know me yet but i am going to approach him for the next DVD tutorial that i will be arrangeing in the new year. Hopefully some of you can soften him up for me !!

Regards


Worth

Just like you were easily fooled by the toy keyfeel on the re packaged S900 and inferior MFD....Hmmmmmm funny coming from a non pa800 owner....Ian do me a favor psot some of these inferior fills for us ...so we can hear what you mean...cut the crap and put up baby.

You're correct Spalding...an expert player like Rod Pooley could easily overcome the style fill-in limitations.

But, the hard truth is that the PA-800 is marketed as a home keyboard and the majority of users would expect decent fill-ins that would be more forgiving than the PA-800's "spot on" approach to triggering them.

It must be rather disconcerting to some owners to realize that a PSR, that is less than half the price, has better implemented(and more plentiful)style fills.

Ian

Ian ...........I cant even comment anymore I mlauging to hard....this icon say it all to your last post.

Nah, Donny, I wasn't fooled...I accept the PSR-900's light action and MFD limitations...the SA and Mega voices and a proper style engine more than make up for them.

But, you have a bigger problem...denial about the PA-800's style fill restrictions.

Perhaps Korg will open a self-help group for people in your situation....go for it, baby!

Ian

Ian until you post an A/B between the two units fills, which you wont...
I wont reply on this anymore...I know what I play works too well fo me.

No problem, Donny.

Denial of denial...wow!

But, the hard truth is that the PA-800 is marketed as a home keyboard and the majority of users would expect decent fill-ins that would be more forgiving than the PA-800's "spot on" approach to triggering them.

I 've said this before Ian. Play one yourself if you get the opportunity. I dont understand the fill problem as it does not exist on my PA1X and even though my timing is very good (even if i say so myself) i have tried to trick the keyboard by pressing the fill buttons just out of time and it accomodates my eror flawlessly.

Anyway. Its not the right keyboard for everyone and there is a lot of choice as i said earlier.

timing of hitting fills was not a problem here either...I really can't understand what the fuss is about.

There seems to be two schools of thought regarding the fills...who's right?

Something must be amiss, or no one would be complaining.

My view is that the fills are out of charachter to many (not all) of the patterns. They trigger just fine, but they are usually busier than the current style, so it appears that they "jump" into the measure. About 60% of the time, the fills are OK, but the other 40% is a toss up - some good, some...not so much.

Still, with the 16 measure style patterns and the very useable break button .... there is plenty of variation to suit many needs. This is the best vocal processor and monitor I ever had, so I'll live with some minor limitations in the fills. Most of my crowd responds to the vocals anyway...the rest is fluff in my shows. As long as it's solid and danceable ..... I can keep the room alive with it.

Gary you have nailed it there!!. That is (was? after op sys3 on the pa1) the problem with the early PA series fills, just out of context with what was being played to what was coming, more particularly on the way back. AFAIK, most over at the korg forums are happy with fills on both the PA800 and the updated PA1x (op sys 3) Korg have listened and varied the fills..And another point I would like to make to another poster is the the fills are editable, just like any other part of the styles on the korg keyboards..In my case I just couldn't be bothered, and found ways around it...
Dennis
In just 25 more days I can give everyone a first-hand evaluation of the PA2xpro...so we will see, as someone else said there are many more reasons to buy a keyboard than just the fills, its the total package that matters, and I reckon the PA800 and the new PA2x are going to be "the bomb" for some time to come

OOPS!!! of COURSE I meant Dave in the previous post...my bad.....how embarrassing
Dennis...
NIGEL, BRING BACK THE EDIT BUTTON rotflmao

Hi Dennis,
I tried a couple of PA1X styles that came with EMC. ( I can only assume they were genuinely PA1x)
I did notice that fill 2 seemed a bit out of context & particularly loud compared to the rest of the style. For some bizzare reason they put expression controllers in a fill, the strings were fading in & out, might have been causing part of the problem.

I haven't really noticed that to any great degree in the PA800, only that fill 2 seems to work better with variations 3 & 4 , ( it seems busier) wheras fill 1 works quite well with any of them.

Another neat trick I discovered today was being able to trigger a fill with velocity.
I set mine to break.

Also great all the optional settings for which variation a fill will go to ie toggle between vari 1 & 2, or do increments up or down etc etc

No doubt the time will pass quickly enough before your PA2x arrives, you'll be counting hours soon.

best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by miden:
[B]

Hi Rikki,
yes having the ability to dynamically trigger fills is a good thing (was available on the PA1x too), as were the other fill options..The Korg's really do give a player a huge amount of editing range, even to the editing and even the creation of your own sounds from scratch!!! They are great tools..I have kicked myself pretty much every day from the day after I sold my PA1xpro...but THAT is soon to be rectified!!
cheers
Dennis

Hi Dennis,
we all make mistakes. haahaa

I nearly ended up with a secondhand Korg PA1x pro, but unfortunately my friend changed his mind about selling his, & I ended up with the Ketron.

Took me 3 years to find a replacement for my kn7, ( & lots of wondering what possesed me to sell it) but, I think I've finally found it in the PA800.

best wishes
Rikki

Look, I'd just like to get some simple answers about the PA800/PA2X fill system. Is it POSSIBLE to get an out of time fill by hitting it in the 'wrong' time (whatever that means) or out of tempo (still don't get that one either)? If not, what was that comment all about, Donny?

I still think most of the comments boil down to the fact that, if you have a style with a Break/Fill (and I'd certainly want one for every style, if possible), you basically only have ONE fill-up (to take a variation up to a busier pattern) and one fill-down (to bring it back down).

But with a FOUR variation style, there is NO WAY that one fill-up will work between 3 & 4 (usually pretty busy with a lot of active Parts) AND work smoothly between 1 & 2, (usually much simpler, less busy and fewer active Parts). Restrict yourself arbitrarily to only using two of the available four patterns and yes, it MIGHT not seem much of a problem (unless you are going from 1 to 4 and back!), but that is to cheat yourself of the full potential of the style.

But, just for once, is it possible to talk maturely about an arranger without those that DO own the keyboard frantically spinning to obscure what is an apparently well documented flaw. I keep saying this, and it seems to make no difference, but these things are TOOLS. Tools that COULD be improved, if we were just willing to TALK about their flaws, and make the manufacturers aware that we DO know about their problems. But to have the majority of Korg owners deny a point that is pretty obvious even from just looking at the tech specs, yet alone down-play comments from actual OWNERS that ARE willing to discuss the problem is just plain silly.

NONE of you (AFAIK) are Korg salesmen, stock holders or on the Korg Arranger R&D team. So why the unwillingness to firstly, admit that there is ANY kind of problem at all, and secondly, let other potential buyers become aware that this is something to check for themselves before they BUY one, usually sight unseen (as hard as they are to track down in a brick and mortar store)?

These things are TOOLS (or toys, Ian!), not your religion, or your grandkids, and CAN be improved. IF.... you are willing to discuss the problems rather than 'defend' your purchase at the Court of Consumerism. There are MANY, MANY unbelievably great features in the new Korg's. Just because they have this ONE problem doesn't mean that you can't hold your heads up high, or gig professionally, or amaze your friends. But if you deny it, down-play it and state (just for pride's sake) that there IS no problem, what incentive do you think Korg have to FIX IT?

Let us face it, if the Korg DID have six fills (or even, gasp! my choice of sixteen), you would be touting this ability as a great PLUS, another reason to confirm your infallibleness at choosing the 'best' arranger. But because it has this one flaw, out comes the 'spin doctor' mode.

Look, my G70 has flaws. I've learned many workarounds so that I can bypass them, and few of them impact my performance. But you don't see me going around saying that, just because I've figured out a workaround, the problems do not exist. Make them public, make the manufacturer know that these flaws are public, make them realize it would help their sales, which are probably negatively affected by the flaws being public, if the FIXED them.

Are their any Korg owners out there that WOULDN'T like it if Korg upped the number of fills to equal or surpass the competition...? Didn't think so...

Here's your chance to address the issue. Fail to do so, and you can look forward to the issue NEVER being resolved. Heck, Korg might not do it even AFTER you discuss it like adults... But at least you TRIED.

Diki,
Firstly, I do NOT own a PA1x anymore (I did), I do not own a PA800 anymore (I did).I thought I could get something better, but nothing is better than the Korgs. (I have also been through the g70, e50, sd1+)...

If you read one of my previous posts you will see that I said it WAS a problem on the early PA1x's.
It was certainly commented on, but it was not a "well documented and known problem" some people had issues with it, myself included, but I, like you and your G70, came up with solutions that suited me.

HOWEVER, Korg have listened to the forums and with the operating system 3.0 addressed the fill issues for the PA1x series.

As far as the complexity of the various fills and where they should be used, this is well documented in the manual, which, going on my experience from the korg forums, is something not many users do.

I have not seen any post re fills since the release of this update. This same fill system is also used on the PA800 and from what I have been told has been refined even further on the PA2x..

As for triggering out of time fills,(those people at Korg are very clever just look at their NTT's or their voice allocation system!!! to name just 2) and it is very difficult to do so.

The Korg seems to have some sort of AI happening that automatically adjusts, and modulates the fill to a 2 beat fill instead of a 4 beat fill, or seems to recognise that the player has somehow erred, and moves it to the next bar, Im not really sure how it works, but it does.

And Diki, do me a favour, when you make sweeping comments about what is said and not said, can you please be more specific about the posts you are commenting on.

This is about the third time I can recall where you have included posts from others and myself in these generalised comments, when its really only one or two posts that you are referring to.
Thanks
Dennis

But these posts exist. They have existed in the past, they still exist today. This is by no means the only thread where this issue has been discussed. This is not me making anything up. There are SOME (a few) willing to comment on the problem, which they themselves say varies from style to style, which makes sense as some styles will accentuate the problem, and others will make it less apparent. And then there are others unwilling to admit ANY flaw at all.

Just from a technical standpoint, here is a fundamental feature of an arranger (the number of fills, and how smoothly you can go from ANY variation to any other variation) that is quite obviously trailing most other manufacturers. Two or three fills (depending on whether you have a B/Fill or not) is a HUGE step backwards from most other manufacturers. But instead of going 'Hey, Korg! Can't we have as many as at least Yamaha, and do away with ANY jumpy fills at all?' you spend your time trying to tell those that ARE willing to discuss the possibility that this MIGHT be a good idea to just STFU... How DARE we discuss this? Some of us haven't even BOUGHT one, so what right have we to talk about it? ROFLMAO...

Look, I understand that you can work around the problem, somewhat. I understand that, in the hands of a good performer, you might not notice the problem at all (after he has either re-written the styles or figured out in advance WHAT combination of buttons to NOT hit to avoid the flaw). Sure, flaws can be covered up and avoided. But wouldn't it simply be easier to ask Korg for a few more fills, so you don't even have to THINK about the problem..?

Korg, more than almost any other arranger manufacturer, have shown their willingness to provide quite significant updates to the operating system. Some very innovative and original functions have been added, after the fact, to existing arrangers (rather than simply coming out with a new model), and I think that Korg owners, definitely more than most others, actually have a chance to get this issue addressed. But only if you are willing to admit it even exists.

Sure... you CAN make good music with two fills. But you can make BETTER music with more. Where's the harm in asking?

Is it really THAT hard to admit ANY flaw that you would be willing to forego any improvement in the future, simply to avoid discussing it?

My G70, for me, is STILL the best arranger currently available, and addresses my needs closer than any other arranger. I am proud to own one, play one every day, and it garners kudos from all I play with. But I am the FIRST to take Roland to task for any flaws it might have, in the hope that some of them will get addressed. Some of them have, some of them haven't. BUT AT LEAST I TRIED...

I do not spend my time trying to tell potential buyers and the simply curious that these flaws do not exist. I already AM comfortable with my purchase, despite the flaws.

Where's the harm in that?

I just want to add one thing regarding the fills on the Pa800.

I am finding that with many of the Styles being programmed for eight or sixteen bars - or more - there is already a great deal of variation in the Style itself.

I noticed this last month when I was helping a guitar-player friend create a song in my Pa800 by just typing the chord changes into the STEP_EDIT mode of the sequencer. I entered a fill during the transition from Verse to chorus, and a Break at the transition from chorus to Bridge, and that was it.

And yet, due to the richness of the Styles, it still sounded "non-static"

- Frost

Frost Id like to hear that song .....sounds interesting.

Hi Diki,
personally I'm finding fill 1, seems to work best with var 1 & 2, Fill 2 ( more complex) with vari 3 & 4. Fill 1 does also sometimes work with vari 3 & 4, but I think fill 2 tends to sound too busy for var1 1.

Korg variations work more like the yamaha keyboards in that they start off simple with vari 1, vari 2 is a bit more complex ( fuller) building up to vari 4 which is the busiest.

Rolands are different from what I remember? ie you basically have 2 lots of 2 variations. "A" has a simple & complex variation, "B" has a simple & a complex variation. A & B are usually quite different?? (correct me if I'm wrong)
You probably would need at least 4 fills because a fill for the B type variation probably wouldn't suit an A type variation, and also a simple A type fill wouldn't suit
the fuller complex version & vice versa.

I think maybe that's why the korg basically can get away with just the 2 fills ( plus break). Also a lot of the styles are fairly long & varied. They don't sound static. Maybe not as much need to add a fill to vari them.
Also Korgs have up to 6 cv's per variation.
We're not just stuck with having a variation for a maj chord, min or 7th chord , there's 3 additional chord types that can be programed. That in itself can add variety to a variation.

Haven't had a chance to check how many styles use more than the main 3.
Great part is the style can be as simple or complex as one wants.
For the amatuer like myself the variations & fills can be programmed on one chord type
maj7 (same as the earlier psrs) or for EMC conversions , which I also play around with,
I'll have variations for maj, min, & 7th chords. Don't know if I'll ever get round to doing parts for the additional 3 chord types, but they're always there & no doubt korg will use them in programming some of their styles.

best wishes
Rikki
p.s
maybe the fills do sound differrent at timesbecause I think they also have the 6 chord type variations.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diki:
[B]

Rikki, the system on Roland's you are describing is from the older, G1000 days. They have a new system now, with four linear, that is increasingly more complex variations rather than the old system that had two variations (in a way) and a button that made them more or less complex. So still four variations, really, but more of a 1 and 1a and 2 and 2a rather than 1,2,3,4.

So the need for more fills wasn't so much there. Now that there is a much more linear progression through the variations, there are more fills to account for situations like going from 4 to 3, or 4 to 1, which would need a far more dramatic drop, and, say, 1 to 2 rather than 1 to 4, which need totally different 'builds'.

It is still not perfect (only 16 fills is that!), but it HAS to be better than just two fills for all four variations and their destinations.

In essence, Korg are usually making you use Fill 1 for 1 to 2 and back and Fill 2 for 3 to 4 if you want to keep things smooth. The problem seems to arise if you want to go from 4 to 1 or 2 and vice versa. A couple of extra fills could easily fix that. As to more fills being available for different chord TYPES, this, although nice (and available on other arrangers too), doesn't address the COMPLEXITY issue.

It is going to be very hard to think that, if you want a 4 to 1 fill, play a minor chord (or whatever). Songs just don't cooperate that way, most of the time..!

And to those that point out the 16 bar patterns (is that all the styles, or just a few?), again, that only works if your song cooperates and has a straightforward 16 bar structure, and you don't want to build or ebb the energy during the 16 bars. Otherwise, it's back to Bar 1 every time you hit a fill. We've discussed in the past about the problems with long (i.e. 16 or 32-bar patterns) that really only work with 16 bar structure songs, or every time you hit the fill, there goes the last eight or nine (or sixteen!) bars that you never get to.

I realize a lot of pop songs ARE that simple. But a lot AREN'T.

I just find it strange that, for all the really advanced features they've packed into the PA800/2XPro, not bringing the fill choices up to the variation choices seems a poor area to leave so untouched...

I thought we summarized that there's nothing wrong with the fills. Compared to just a few short years ago these new arrangers are MAGIC...nit picking every little thing instead of just enjoying playing these fantastic instruments makes more sense to me...

No, Donny. Just SAYING there's nothing wrong with them doesn't change the facts. There are only two fills for the entire style, unless you forego the Break/Fill. And then there are three.

Compared to six for Roland, and five for Yamaha, that cannot help but make for jumpier fills, and several posts (mrdave and Dreamer articulate it well) acknowledge the problem.

Just SAYING it ain't so doesn't MAKE it so, and the fact that you rarely ever have anything critical to say about an arranger you own until AFTER you have sold it cannot help but make us pay somewhat less attention to the spin...

The sad fact is, if the PA800 had six fills, and the PSR S900 had only two, you would be the FIRST to pooh-pooh the contention that 'two are enough'!

Can you GET BY with two...? Well, apparently, yes, you seem OK with it. But if you DID have more, you certainly wouldn't complain about it!

Hi Diki,
I must admit my last Roland was the VA7, & at that stage it still had the older system.

I'm not familiar with the newer Rolands.

best wishes
Rikki


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diki:
[B]Rikki, the system on Roland's you are describing is from the older, G1000 days.

I already have Diki, several times..and this flaw which has always been that sometimes the actual fill itself is a bit busy or loud forthe particular variation, has been discussed and addressed ad nauseum on the korg forums, AND AND AND Korg have done something about it...Man you really cannot see the bleeding obvious through all your rhetoric can you...sheesh what does one have to do?
Okay, Variation 1 of the style has a fill one and a fill 2 and a break, Variation 2 has fill one , fill two and a break, variation 3 has fill 1 and fill 2 and a break variation four has fill 1 and fill 2 and a break. So there are, including breaks, 12 fills for each complete style. There is not just 2 fills used for all four style variations.. Now in the real world one would not usually use a fill used on variation 4 (usually the busiest) to go back to variation 1, which is where the break fill can be used. To say the korg has only 2 fills for an entire style is just wrong.

Sorry, miden, but what you state there is COMPLETELY at odds with Korg's own tech specs. There are NOT 12 fills, there are THREE. PERIOD. END OF BLEEDING!

No matter how often you say it, it will not change (unless Korg update it to the system you would LIKE to be true).

mrdave's post:



and Dreamer's post:



explain it fully.

Please check your facts before you assume that what you would LIKE to be the truth actually IS...

I guess you mean that...

... playing these fantastic instruments makes more sense instead of nit picking every little thing.

Taike

Diki,
When I used the pa1xpro, and I had it for quite some time, the fill that played on a styles' variation 4 for example, was different to the fill played when you were on variation 1..well to my ears anyway......I suspect that we are probably talking about the same thing, just from different angles..as even with that fill, it was still inappropriate for say just a fill to repeat the first variation as it built a little too much. But hey, if everyone else is right and Im wrong, I dont really give a toss, its how I remember the board..I never got the opportunity to upgrade to op sys 3.00 because I sold it, but from other comments at the Korg forum and the way it seemed to die down the new op system must have addressed the problem, so Korg were listening and did something about it.
I have had several private chats with Paolo re some of the shortcomings of the pa1x, all of which he said was passed on to the hardware design team and the software team as well.
It is not really an issue that needs to be flogged again quite frankly..You asked for genuine and honest comment on a topic and I gave it..I can't help it if you disagree, thats your problem.
Dennis

When pressing a fill button 2x the fill keeps repeating until pressed again .....thats a nice touch too.

Just an excerpt from the PA2x manual ...
Patterns/Chord Variations : Up to 42 patterns for each style including 3 Intros, 3 Endings, 3 Fills..So I have misunderstood what the info was saying and thought it meant 3 per variation...but I still thought the fills sounded different on my old pa1x, and the PA800...anyway I'll soon know for sure...

Welcome back to the forum Diki where have u been?

we all missed u dearly ... well maybe not ALL...

there is one way to end this post and silence everyone's opinion on this debate about the Korg Fills...

Donny needs to say "The PA 800's fills suit my needs". come on Donny just go and say it

then again i dont know why all the fuss becuase Donny will have a new keyboard in a few months anyways...

Nick

*end this thread* i meant, sorry...

Big of you, Dennis.

Me, if I get the facts completely wrong in a post, I'll apologize. But that's just me. OPINION, now I'll argue until I'm blue in the face, but when confronted by the FACTS (and they were stated clearly LONG before my posts), well, that's something else.

Two fills (sometimes three) per style CAN sound pretty good. All the Korg owners here seem to get by (and we ALL did a few years ago when two was the norm), but it is common sense that, when three is good, six is better. And encouraging Korg to step up to the plate and address this one (last?) quibble will only help what is already a fine arranger become even better.

OK?

Diki you don't seem to have read my last post..where I did say I must have misunderstood the Specs etc etc,...so yeah I was wrong, sorry, but I still reckon they sounded different when I played them on the pa1x, and the pa800 for that matter, but I must have been mistaken about that too, so sorry for that as well.
Dennis

PS not that it makes any difference, but when I made that post you refer to, I had just come off 2 frustrating hours with Creative tech support (via email) trying to get a stupid program that I bought from them to work..I kept getting the same questions from them in every email, and the bloody program still doesn't work....

Hi Dennis,
don't worry,
I got this wrong too. The fills only have 2 chord variations , same as the intro & endings.

It's only the 4 variations that have the 6 cv's.

Next time I may check before I speak haa haa.

best wishes
Rikki

[QUOTE]Originally posted by rikkisbears:
[B]
maybe the fills do sound differrent at timesbecause I think they also have the 6 chord type variations.

Yeah that might have been it too Rikki, I do dfinitely recall some difference in sound....thanks for the support ... I did think I had it (or remembered it) correct, and it was only after I checked the manual specs, that the OOPS! moment happened...
Cheers
Dennis