It doesn't matter to me how many new features are added as long as Korg is continuing to support the PA2X Pro, I commend them. Chances are the updates won't be earth shattering but the PA2X Pro is already a fine musical instrument so any additions are welcomed additions.

Like the PA2X my Yamaha 9000 Pro was supposed to be future proof with software updates but Yamaha pulled the plug on it. 9000 Pro updates were more difficult to find than a cure for cancer would be before Yamaha discontinued it. After they discontinued it.... fugget about it! Just be glad Korg isn't orphaning the PA2X at this time.

Mike,

You cannot add polyphony with a software upgrade. That is a sound chip enhancement. But, the Korg uses the same sound chip as the M3 and Oasys, so I don't think that should be problem. I haven't experienced any drop outs as yet with the keyboard.

Al

It is possible to add Polyphony via software but it all depends on the architecture of the instrument. I don't believe the PA2X can add polyphony via software though as its an embedded product, but it may be possible. Who knows, maybe Korg has a PC hidden under the PA2X shell?

The Korg Oasys and Wersi Abacus both added polyphony in new software updates. These of course are computer based instruments so they have an advantage over embedded instruments in that they aren't fixed. Just another one of the advantages an Open Architecture keyboard has.

By the way... the PA2X Pro does not use the same sound chip as the Oasys. It may share some of the same type of sounds but not the same sound chip. The Oasys uses the HD-1 sound engine, the PA2X Pro the EDS sound engine. While quite good sounding the EDS engine does not have the dynamic range or filtering that the HD-1 engine has.

Just curious, but why the need for more polyphony?

Are you running out of voices?

Or is it one of those stats that are easier to quantify than sound quality, or ease of operation, or quality of styles, and thus makes it to the top of the list?

Me, I'd shoot for better D/A's, if you want to find a factor that is never discussed much, and manufacturers rarely publish specs on. It would probably make more difference to your perceived impression of the PA2Xpro's overall 'quality' than a few more voices of polyphony, IMO

Al, the reason I suggested a possible polyphony increase by using software on a hardware/software based instrument such as a keyboard is because it IS possible to increase the polyphony on, let's say, a computer's hardware based sound card. For instance, the Creative Sound Blaster Live! released several years ago had an original factory hardware based polyhony of 512 if I remember correctly. >> Yep... 512 capable notes of polyphony playback on a dinky little sound card back in 1998??? Go figure, right Al? Anyway, Creative apparently didn't think 512 notes of polyphony was enough for Sound Blaster Live! Users - (tell that same thing to Yamaha and the rest of 'em and they'll just laugh at us, right? - so Creative, by way of a software update, increased the Sound Blaster Live! polyphony to 1024! For a $100 sound card mind you! And here we are today in 2008 where Yamaha, Korg, Roland, and the rest of them have convinced all of us that 128 is "muy excellent e muchas buenas, si?" (and likely ALL we'll ever get for years to come if they had their druthers right? )

Anyway, to make a long story short"er" , the reason Creative was able to increase a hardware based sound card's polyphony through just a software update >> (from what I've gathered anyway), was that the hardware DSP chip used in the Sound Blaster Live! was supposedly a very powerful sound chip made by E-mu and it apparently had reserve scalability - being so powerful and all - and the software update utilized the reserve power on the hardware chip and was effectively able to double the sound card's polyphony from 512 to 1024! JUST through the use of software...

Now understand, most likely the hardware chips Yamaha used in the T2 had reached the limit of its performance and efficiency, evidenced by the fact the T2 slow screen redraw issues compared to the T1. Yamaha probably used similar powered chips in the T2 that they did in the T1, but because of the T2's extra cpu intensive features such as direct Audio recording and the Sample-"player", etc., the chips on the T2, needless to say, were apparently maxed out in my opinion, with the T2 even considered by me to be "underpowered" for all the features it has. >> Same scenario that happened to the PSR9000PRO most likely as well, only this time it's in a 61 key flavor. [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/wink.gif[/img] So what I am saying is, the T2 would NOT be scalable and heaven knows if the T3 will or will not be.
Or if Yamaha even takes CPU/DSP chip scalability into consideration when they build their keyboards.
Or for that matter Korg, since we're talking about OS 2.0 for the PA2XPRO? [img]http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/redface-oops-6.gif[/img]

So in theory, I think it could be done if the manufacturers took chip scalability into consideration. [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/cool.gif[/img] Who knows if any of them do or not though. [img]http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Confused/sorry.gif[/img]

Best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 08-28-2008).]

If the hardware is based on SHARC chips or an FPGA, then in theory software developers could add nearly an infinite number of changes and updates being only limited by the number of chips used and the host computer driving them. There are theoretical limits to each chip but the possibilities far exceed those of custom embedded chips used by most manufacturers such as Yamaha. The Wersi is one such device that utilizes several SHARC processors to produce its audio, sampling, and synthesis. The major advantage of a system like this isn't just the incredible sound quality of the processing card itself, but the ability to swap cards out when a faster card becomes available.

Hi Mike
Regarding creative cards, you are mixing voices and polyphony up. (Easily done with the creative (Ouch) marketing used)
The Polyphony of Creative cards vary between 32 and 128 notes, depending on the type of card. (The average is 64)
The 512 voices you refer to are the number of sounds (Voices) they can access, later software updates allowed the cards to access the computer ram, thus increasing the number of sounds (Voices) that could be accessed. (These can be identified in the small print which states that the additional number of sounds (voices) is dependent on the computer system used)
Hope this makes things clearer.

Bill

Thanks for your reply Bill. Thanks also for clarifying the differences. So you're saying that the Creative card could theoretically "access" up to (in the case of the Sound Blaster Live!) 1024 different 'sounds' but yet not be able to playback all of those sounds i.e. "tones" - {where a "tone" is the basic structure that makes up the 'sound'(s)} all at once.

I would still like to make the point that you can buy a relatively "inexpensive" piece of equipment like a computer sound card for a $100 or so that has 128 notes of polyphony. We're paying, in some cases, over 4 Grand and more for our sound producing keyboards and the manufacturers seem stuck in a HUGE rut - one in which they don't want to get out of apparently either of a measly 128 notes of polyphony.

I know, I know, Chas will say a person only has 10 fingers, but if that is the rule of thumb the manufacturers go by, all we would ever need would be 10 notes of polyphony - which thankfully the manufacturers have obviously ignored by the way. Sorry Chas. With ALL thes new CPU and Polyphony intensive features being added to workstations and even more polyphony intensive arrangers, 128 notes of polyphony CAN NOT cut the mustard in my opinion. But it always seems to fall on deaf ears except in a RARE few occasions like Ketron's forthcoming Audya and Korg's now obsolete Oasys, etc. If Ensnareyou is right about the SHARC chips or an FPGA then I still think theoretically polyphony need not be solely based and hardwired to hardware as far as increasing the amount goes. But on the other hand I could indeed be wrong about that assumption.

Thanks again Bill for your explanation on the Creative product.

Best,
Mike

Mike,

Companies like Wersi, Lionstracs, and Open Labs offer instruments where polyphony is so high you won't even think twice about it. Is 1024+ voice polyphony enough for you? How about the polyphony only being limited by CPU speed and RAM? That's one of the strong points of open architecture instruments.

The reason the big three don't offer more polyphony is that they are limited by the CPU and its processing power. To increase polyphony they'd need a better CPU, more RAM, and that would significantly change the price point of the instrument. There's a reason the Audya, Lionstracs Mediastation, and Wersi OAS instruments cost more, they use higher end components that cost significantly more.

The Korg Oasys is a great example of an open ended instrument where the manufacturer didn't offer the kind of support for it that they should have. The Oasys has the processing power and RAM capability to be far more than it is but rather than allowing third parties access to Korg software so they could integrate third party VST's and other applications into the Oasys, Korg chose to keep the system closed. Korg had a great idea with the Oasys but I believe the sales weren't as expected and as such Korg decided to not develop much more software for the instrument. I was one of the people who purchased an Oasys and had high hopes for it. I saw the writing on the wall early on when software updates lacked the much needed features and instead Korg decided to offer sound sets rather than features so I sold my Oasys. It was a phenomenal synthesizer but by no means the Pro Workstation Korg touted it to be.

People have really got to get their heads around the difference between VSTi's DXi's and ROMPLERS.

It is only with the first two that CPU, Ram etc etc makes any difference.

The third is TOTALLY dependent on the number of Oscillators on board, 1 osc = 1 note, 4 osc = 4 notes, you get the idea.

Oscillators are hardware, ie, can only be increased by building a new keyboard, or have the ability to install a new mother board, or in the case of romplers more probably a daughter-board.

The ROM chips ONLY store wave/sample data and have nothing to do with polyphony. Polyphony on these instruments is determined by the number of oscillators

If there are only 64 available oscillators, then no matter WHAT you do it will ALWAYS be 64 note polyphony TOTAL.

The more samples used to create the sound the less available polyphony.

Which is the opposite on VSTi DXi where the upper limit on polyphony is, theoretically, unlimited.

Dennis