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...