Are extra buttons THAT expensive? What about a faster chip (to increase polyphony) would it be THAT much more expensive?
Star

I just have a funny feeling that with technology changing so fast all around us, Arranger Kb's as we know them are on their last legs my friends. Whats next is beyond me, but I would bet soft synth or somkind of computer related ideas are in motion. How many times can manufacturers rehash, remodel, refurbish, recycle these KB's for our consumption the way they have been doing for so long? meanwhile enjoy whats out there and keep one eye open!!

Star,

I agree with you - it is ridiculous that the manufacturers are trying to save a few dollars on providing an adequate number of buttons for easy navigation, and in the process, creating instruments which are completely unusable - Roland VA-76 is the case in point. I surely hope that Korg is not going to go the same route.

Donny,

I am not sure that you or I will be playing the software-based arranger anytime soon. I remember a few years ago at the Musicmesse one of the German keyboard manufacturers (was it Waldorf?) had come out with a prototype platform which contained a PC inside. It did not fly. Then, last winter OpenLabs teased us with Eko. OpenLabs appears to be dead in the water as well. There are some real problems in trying to make a PC into a keyboard, and for now the dedicated keyboard makers have the upper hand.

All the technologies to make a perfect keyboard exist already. However, there is no desire among the manufacturers to put it together in one instrument. This forum for years has catalogued the users' opinions as to what features and functions we need and what we don't need in the instrument (and I think we have as a group been very consistent). It is an unforgivable marketing mistake for a manufacturer to so blatantly ignore the needs of the users.

Regards

I agree Alex that the technology exists. It is beyond me as to why Korg is still using the outdated Triton sound engine in their new Keyboard products. Sure the Triton is a big seller which I think in part is because Korg is sponsoring mega pop culture stars to use their Boards and they get splashed all over TV, at concerts, in the Media, etc. Then these wannabes see that the Big Boys use a Triton and they go out and get one too to be "Hip" or be part of the "In Crowd". Don't get me wrong; yes, the Triton Studio 2 has been much improved over the original Classic Triton and now we have the Pa1X/Pro with the new "RX" technology (whatever that is) that is suppose to greatly improve a Voice's "instrument's" realism. But the RX technology is still just building on to the Triton sound engine. It doesn't replace it and give us something brand new.

Now Yamaha on the other hand is at least trying IMO to listen to what their customers want although they too are sometimes slow in implementing many of those new features that their customers yearn for. The Tyros although not revolutionary does add a new dimension to sound reproduction with the inclusion of the Mega Voices and good quality Voice samples. Plus I think Yamaha sees the need for Arrangers to have ample Polyphony because of the load placed upon Arranger's when using Style Accompaniment, Multi-Pad use, plus the quadruple Voice Layering and then on top of that the Layering within the Layers, hence they gave the Tyros 128 note Polyphony and even give the CVP 209, 210, and 900 "256 note Polyphony".

They also are giving the new Motif ES "True" 128 note Polyphony plus according to Athan Billias a person will actually be able to "Play" the Mega Voices included on the Motif ES. As everyone knows it is impossible to play the Tyros's Mega Voices with any semblance of normality and correctness.

So I do see Yamaha making headway and I believe they are really trying to make an effort to accomodate their customers needs. Albeit, as I said, they are sometimes slow in the implementation of some of them. A good example would be the PSR 2000/2100 and even their Flagship Tyros all having very meager User Flash Ram Memory chips in them. The Tyros's User memory capacity is a mere 3.3Mb's. Even their newest Arranger, the PSR 2100, only has 1.5Mb's and the PSR 2000 (Now Discontinued) has a very meager 580Kb's. Another area Yamaha lacks in is giving their higher end Arrangers 'Digital Outputs'.

So even though the technology is available to give us an "almost" perfect Arranger apparently the motivation by the Manufacturers to do so is not there. Plus the all inclusive calculated Marketing schemes they are all privy to and partake in which give us the buying public and in their eyes "peons" I suppose; just small bumps in progress and feature enhancements with the 'calculated' intention of egging us on to upgrade to the latest and greatest. Now to get them to change that mindset they're geared to, is probably like trying to get a duck to fly backwards and not to quack.

Best regards,
Mike

[This message has been edited by Idatrod (edited 08-07-2003).]

I have spent a ton of time "crunching" the numbers, enough to be fairly well versed on most of the main specs of the popular arrangers. An example .. Ok, the PA series uses only 64 notes of ppolyphony, but the thing is, when I play it, I never notice any note dropoff at all. By the same token, I can easily make the notes drop off on my Motif.. also 64 notes of polyphony. All this while the Korg is playing a full style and responding to my real time playing, while the Motif is only responding to what I'm playing in real time, no sequences or anything else running. The difference is in the allocation of the polyphony. I am not sure that even 128 will be enough for the new Motif under the Yamaha note / polyphony allocation scheme. I've lost a few notes here and there on my PSR2k as well.

Specs are what they are.. great for reference. What it all comes down to in the end though is the way the board responds when I play it. For all the knocks I hear on the PA80 and "too many menus or buttons " or other shortcomings, no matter how long I play them, the PA80 is always easier for me to use in a live setting than the PSr2000 will ever be, and for whatever reason, it responds to my playing like no other board I have. The joystick is a big plus for me too.. Just makes a world of difference.

The PA80 was definitely a sharper learning curve for me than the 2000, but I would expect that with it's vast editing power too. The PA layout is just more agreeable for me in general and I find it very easy to use when I'm playing live, maybe in part because the board was setup the way I wanted it to be long before I ever took it out on the road. The PA80 has so many more functions that can be customized.. replace any or all of the internal styles, create REAL user voices from raw samples, sts ( OTS ) settings can be easily changed and customized "on the fly" for any style. These are just a few examples. Anything less for me is a poor tradeoff.

I would say that a majority of the players I know might prefer the Yamaha stuff. That's OK too. They're easy to learn and comfortable, and while the OS's get more sophisticated as time goes on and models get replaced, in many ways they work in similar ways to their predecessors. I just navigate on the PA80 better in real time than I do on any of the Yamaha boards, for whatever reason, no matter what shortcomings others might find with it. Also, I feel the need to be able to customize my board to the limit, so the PA80 type stuff may always be a first choice for me 'til someone makes something I like better.

It's great that there is more than one type of board out there, just as there are more than one type of keyboard / arranger players.

So, all this long winded reply really means is that I'll pass judgement to an exctent 'til I actually get one of the new boards in my hands and can hear and feel how it responds to "me" . Then I'll know for sure. It's great to talk about them now.. but.. the acid test is when it's in my hands.


AJ

AJ, thank you for sharing your observations with us. You are certainly not alone id noticing that Korg handles the polyphony better than Yamaha does. Indeed, Yamaha (Tyros and Motif) has some voices with up to 8 samples per note (I think on PSR2000/2100 it is the maximum of 4), while Korg (and Roland, and GEM) use a maximum of 2 samples per note. Hence, if you were to use a real high quality voice on the Yamaha, you would only have a maximum of 16 voice polyphony, while Korg would give you 31 voices. I can not comment on how these sounds compare, as well as how Yamaha's lower-quality sounds, which only use 2 samples per note compare to the Korg's sounds. But I think, in our propensity to use the highest-quality sounds we end up unwittingly giving away the polyphony. It is my experience with the Roland, which also uses maximum of 2 and often 1 samples per note, that with its 64 voices I occasionally run out of polyphony (with the way I play, which might well be different from the way many others play).

The concern that I and others have is that 62 voices of polyphony is fine for a mid-range, $2000 keyboard, but buying a top of the line keyboard, costing nearly twice that, we would (rightly or wrongly) expect the polyphony not to be an issue, even if everybody else's instruments (which are also less expensive) did have this limitation. I don't need the CD burner (heck, I don't even need a joystick, though a breath controller would be nice). But having a top of the line instrument with 62 voices of polyphony is the same as building a big expensive house but not putting in a heater (or here in Phoenix the AC) to save money. It may be true that this house has more wall insulation than the average home (though with 110F outside for weeks this wont help too much). And sure, people used to, and some still do, live without the AC. But they do it as a compromise. If I am going to shell out for a big expensive house (or a keyboard), I want it to be better than the one I have now, and I don't want to make such compromises. Unfortunately, Korg is big and expensive but still forces me to make this compromise.

Like you, I will reserve my judgement until I can get my hands on the PA1X, but no AC is no AC, and no amount of insulation can replace that.

As to your other comment, I hope that you will be able to navigate the PA1X with its touch screen as well as you do your PA80 with the buttons surrounding its display, especially when playing live. My experience with the touchscreens (trying them at the store) has not been so great, especially when trying to change things on the fly like I may need to during a performance.

Regards,
Alex

Alex,

Thanks for a thoughtful response. I don't need the CD burner either, and I'm not sold on the idea of a touchscreen either. Really, I'm not certain at all that I will consider replacing my PA80 with the PA1X anyway, mainly because I don't feel a need to replace the PA80 at all. I'm still happy with it. I tried the Tyros out too and I really like a lot of it, but not enough that it would be more comfortable for me to use live than the PA80 is. I'd have to trade the 2k or the PA80 to get one, and I really don't want to let either go.

The joystick is a big deal to me. I emulate a lot of guitar, and I just get a better feel with it. Which moves me to sounds. Both the Yamaha stuff and PA80 have great sounds for me, and in some areas ( for me ) the Tyros / 2k / Motif shine over the Korg stuff, especially those flutes, and sax / horn sounds. I just think overall that I like some of the "basic" rock sounds a little better overall on the PA80 than on the Yamaha arrangers. That is, drums, bass, lead guitars, organs.. especially the the harder edge guitar sounds. Now on the Motif.. the bass sounds and drums kick @&&... lol. So do the electric pianos and synth sounds.

In fairness though, I've done a lot of editing on the PA80 and have edited and combined a lot of the panel voices into performances. Perhaps I could go as far on the Tyros and customize to what I like, but the 2000 just doesn't have the same capability. Still, the 2000 has some excellent qualities that make me wanna keep it as a very nice companion to the PA80,.

Really, I'm set with arrangers for now. the real question for me is whether the Motif ES and the additonal polyphony and features make it worth the upgrade. My preliminary guess is ..yes, but I want one in my hands first. I'll give the PA1x a look for sure, but I don't know that I'm really interested in it.

AJ

[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 08-08-2003).]

I've been watching this thread with some interest, mainly due to the polyphony issue, which to be honest 'doesn't exist'.

Korg sounds are made of 2 samples, while Y&R keyboards can be made up of 4. For example if your keyboard is 64 note poly, on a Korg that would drop to 32 with a 2 sample voice, while on a Y/R that would drop to 16. That's typically why you hear drop-outs on Yamaha's and the Motif in particular.

The above is also the reason why Korg is able to do the 8 track combi's and Yamaha does the 4 track performances.

In my experience, Korg boards average around 80-90 poly compared against Y/R.

I've owned an i30, Trinity and Triton and haven't experienced note drop-off's. Like AJ, I have done on the Motif. What you must also consider is that the Pa1X has sampling features, and it's possible to record the drum part (with mp3 option) and replace that in a style with the sample, thereby saving you perhaps 10 notes.

In response to other comments. The Pa1X, like the i30 before it 'might' turn out to be a much understated keyboard. The i30 wasn't to everyone's liking mainly because it didn't have a lot of 'flash' elements like Rolands V series, especially.

What I would say to all here is 'seriously give it a go', but please don't come back after a 1 hour demo at your music store and pronounce it 'dead on arrival'. The i30 was a composers dream (then), and while it might not be 100% suitable for your needs, maybe live, it may make up for this in other areas.

A poster commented about the lack of hype surrounding the Pa1X as compared to the Tyros. Please remember that Yamaha is a BIG company compared with Korg, and in the arranger market much more embedded, especially schools/teachers and the like. Dealers also make a bigger profit on Yamaha's, not surprising.

One other thing b4 I go and it's the Mega-voice thing. Quite honestly, i don't see the excitment. Mega's are nothing more than multi-layered voices, albeit programmed well. Playing them is a task in itself, and best left to programmers. What is surprising though is that we've seen this technology well-before the Mega-Voice term was coined.

The way the programming market seems to be going is using and manipulating samples (which are far more realistic than any mega voice can product). I think Korg sees this and that's one of the main reasons there's sampling features on the Pa1X.

Let's be serious - there is no way you can make this assertion. The polyphony issue MAY exist in ANY keyboard with however many notes of polyphony it can support. The more notes of polyphony the instrument has, the less is the likelihood that its polyphony limit will be reached (while it is highly unlikely, it is possible to reach the poly limit on any limited-polyphony instrument).

All you can tell us is that you have not experienced this problem yourself, and good for you. I know for a fact, that on my Roland G1000 which has a max 2 samples per note, I hit the polyphony limit quite often. Of course it depends on the way one plays (not better or worse, just different styles).

Secondly, Korg is positioning the PA1Xpro as a significantly more expensive instrument than anything else on the market, except maybe the overpriced Technics. At that price point, I don't think they should expect the users to make compromises on polyphony.

As far as the ease of use goes, that is also a subjective issue. If you thought that the PA80 was an improvement over i30, then you will surely love the PA1X.

[QUOTE]The Pa1X, like the i30 before it 'might' turn out to be a much understated keyboard.[QUOTE]
That might be. But then, I might be in Philadelphia now (no offence to our PHilly members).

I will certainly give it a try, once it is out in the stores. However, I think that Korg's entire strategy of building a luxury version by adding bells and whistles while skimping on the fundamentals is wrong.

If we as the user community make Korg realize it, then there is a chance that the next model they make may address our concerns. If we are complacent and happy to eat whatever crap they offer us, they will never improve their products.

I can't and wouldn't want to argue about that, it's a given that the more notes you have the less chance there is in running out of them. I guess the jist of it is if you have used or use a Triton or Karma and found them suitable, the same will be true of the Pa1.

As I mentioned previously though, the Pa1X does have sampling features, hopefully resampling as well.

Agreed, the Pa1X-Pro is expensive. A case of waiting to see if you get what you pay for.