Friends,

I am reading these comments with great interest. I am too a wannabe musician and do have some well-paying and very public gigs, but my bills are paid mainly by my day job. My time to play an instrument is very limited, and I am not looking forward to having to spend hours reprogramming the instrument presets before it starts to sound acceptable.

While I did not doubt Roel's lack of satisfaction with the G70, one would expect that in this highly subjective matter reasonable people may disagree. However, now there appears to be a choir of people all reverberating the same opinion. This makes me quite concerned about whether this will be a keyboard for me. I am still planning to evaluate it with my own ears and fingers; however, I will not risk buying one unless the store allows a long-enough return.

I think it is unacceptable of Roland to try to sell a half-baked instrument, covering their arse with the statement that this is a workstation meant to be customized.

Let's hope that Roland is reading these messages and the software upgrade is in the works to fix the issues with the initial configuration and ability to change global settings for the instrument.

Regards,
Alex

Hi Alex,
what I think is, unfortunately European sales manager of Roland would demand an early
delivery because of chrismas business. But it will take much time to prepare presets in a good
way. Now the musical workers had some time to do a good job. Let's hear about the
Namm show and the Frankfurt fair. Regards: Hanspeter

well, it is pluses and minuses with G70 comparing with VA-76 (from my perspective):

PRO

1. sounds -- on par with any other top arrangers, depends of personal taste. Not even comparable in quality with sounds of VA-76 (nevertheless -- the same sound "concept", completely another then e.g. Yamaha).

2. Keys -- better feel, about 2cm longer. Excellent (on par with PA1XPRO, may be even better -- not so sharp side edges of a keys).

3. controls -- there are simpler navigation, less menu browsing, drawbars, more buttons, better touch screen. Not comparable with VA-76.

4. Harmonizer+vocoder -- it is more useful than VaryPhrase engine.

5. Cover function.

6. Lyrics with chords extracted from MIDI files and songs score screens -- this is very, very cool.

7. Simplicity of effects tweaking: attention to mastering good overall mix.

8. USB-link and external memory in contemporary computer format (CompactFlash).

9. Simpler record function and better sequencer.

10. Better connectivity with audio environment (e.g. audio input).

11. D-beam effects as (rather weak) multipad substitute.

12. OTSs better then at VA-76 (when tweaked)

13. Music database is better

CONTRA

1. Too much tweaking before playing. This is threshold. Up to now I do not understand how to retain my tweaks (may be with computer use?) in memory to preserve factory pages layout (it is silly to double all factory presets with my individually tweaked ones!). There no tips and tricks in manual about it. Other arrangers was simply turn on (including VA-76).

2. Style section is bad: now it comparable with other arrangers but not winner, as in VA-76. In VA-76 there was 2 variations with 4 subvariations each -- with difference between this subvariations not less then between G70 variations -- 2x loss. 2 breaks greatly added with style morphing engine: I used one or several bars of Drums, Bass and Accompaniment parts from another styles as breaks and modifiers to style. In G70 we have 6 similar undistinguishable breaks (with added 2 intros) and 4 variations with similar arrangements (e.g. bass and rhythm guitar have same pattern in all 4 variations. It is sufficient for short song, not for long improvisation. Change to another style not applicable here -- it will be namely another style!

3. Styles sounds similar to CD, not similar to live band (as was with VA-76). Yes, now this is the same that we met in other arrangers. But it is "contra" feature for me.

4. In VA-76 it was huge amount of styles and songs in a ZIP-disc. I can't find this at G70. I have difficulties to get this from zip-drive to G70 (I have only one zip-drive at home -- in VA-76).

* * *

My previous setup was psr9000+VA-76: two very different instruments. Now it is psr9000+G70: two very similar instruments with similar style system, similar sound module, similar harmonizer concept. If it will be not psr9000 but Tyros, differences will be smaller (except loudspeakers and 76 keys). But I need no two clone arrangers! I need variety in arrangers. Cover function is not replacement to style morphing, USB is not replacement to excessive tweaking.

I'll retain G70 for a while. May be I simply not knowing what to do with this beast. May be somebody publish here tips and tricks how to tweak G70 to outperform VA-76 in style variety. May be I have subjective shift in my opinion, and other people changing theirs VA-76 to G70 without regret. At least this is keyboard with best keyborard feel at my home (i do not like weighted keyboards, though I trained to play with uprihgt piano. This change of keyboard type is relief like change typewriter keyboard to computer one).

to ironhill
thanks for you comparing styles from VA-76 and G70. Yes, I already note by myself that this is mostly the same styles that in VA-76 (including ZIP-drive-styles) but reworked. Some of the styles lost their's swing and drive after reworking (or maybe it is another quantization in G70?).

But I rare used "pure styles" in VA-76 -- usually I turn on orchestrator, it was may primary screen while playing. And I was user of 2(original+variation)*4gradation*8morphing variations of a style -- controlled from one convenient screen page. And now take fill-in to add...

All other things I was able to do with psr9000 with more or less success.

All this sounds very depressing. As a current VA76 owner, I find the quality and playability of it's styles to be generally abysmal. If the G-70 is already attracting negative comments in this area when compared with the VA, it must be seriously duff.

Why the heck are there NO representatives from Roland on this site monitoring this discussion? Wow..they can really learn a lesson from Ketron and Yamaha in this regard.

Hi Mike,
didn't you or would you not understand what Ailev say to us: he use 2*4*8 (=64) Variations of
one Style. That's not possible to do it with the G-70. This Instrument is now as simple as the
PSR 9000, Tyros, Pa1X, SD 1 and others. That's the point. And, he can do the style morphing
without preparation ( means programming). He knows which first style matches the second
style, immedietly. Wow!. No other Keyboard than the G-70 holds the basic-rhythm that strong
within the four variations-- said Roel. Sorry, I use only a Tyros in addition to the G-70. That
Instrument is more flexible. Maximal 95 % of it will work the same.
Regards Hanspeter

to Ironhill:
Yes! You absolutely right about my vision of situation. G70 is not bad as arranger -- it simply look the same to me as my psr9000. It lack styles-with-64-cool-variations. That was difference that make difference for me with VA-76.

Now there are very similar devices on the market -- pa1x, sd1, tyros, g70. Few differences in timbres, few differences in styles, few difference in harmonizer. With VA-76 there definitely was difference (even 2 differences -- style morphing and varyphrase).

I'm sad to say that after reading all the bad reviews here, the G70 is a big disappointment. Could Roland of screwed up this bad? I happen to like Roland products and their realistic sounds. Could it be that they released the G70 before it was ready to hit the market to compete with the Pa1x? Not very smart if that's the case. I'm waiting to read the reviews from NAMM.

I would agree that, in principle, the "style morphing" function of the VA range is very good. It works very well and is a desirable feature.

However, I still stand by my original comments as the abilty to mix one boring & poor quality style with another boring & poor quality style is not my idea of heaven.

My frustration with the VA is that it contains a lot a very good ideas under the skin (like the style morphing feature), but the basics are just not right. I find the overall sound of the instrument generally dull, the styles extremely primitive & mechanical, and the lack of physical panel buttons for the various major arranger functions makes it unplayable as a traditional arranger type instrument.

It is important for me to point out that I was aware of all this before I bought my VA. I chose it specifically because of its abilities as a midi-files-for-accompaniments plus good-keyboard-patches-for-live-parts abilities.

A couple of years living with it confirms that it does what I bought it for very well, but has also confirmed it's extremely poor performance when used as a true arranger.

I was simply hoping that Roland had drastically improved this aspect with the G-70. Various other contributors comments don't sound very positive so far.

[This message has been edited by MikeTV (edited 01-20-2005).]