Well, firstly, there's no overwhelming superiority by Korg in respect to being able to create user styles. I believe those in the Roland's to be easily as good, and perhaps quite a bit friendlier, but that's really of no consequence when so few actually DO go out and try the facilities...

The sad fact is, IMO, that so few of us realize just HOW proficient as a keyboardist AND a programmer you need to be to be able to make styles that rival the ROM ones. Until you try, whereupon intense disappointment and disillusion sets in. It's kind of like handing a pro garage's set of tools to a person that bought a car to drive to work and play, in the expectation that perhaps they could fix the car themselves! What percentage of car drivers are mechanics?

Add to that you are not really expecting them to FIX their car, you are expecting them to virtually build a new one!

I've listened to interminable arranger demos, and the one thing that they all seem to point to is how few have the skills to even put up a decent RH part against the arranger, yet alone to be able to program convincing drums, funky bass lines, horny horns , groovy percussion, etc., etc..

Basically, if you can't sequence something that sounds like the real thing, you are in no position to program a style, which, IMO, takes even MORE skill and experience than a sequence. Cut and pasting between ROM styles is the only way I have heard for regular players to stand a chance at equaling the ROM quality, and that really doesn't qualify as style CREATION, does it?

I think that the manufacturers are well aware of this fact, too... Despite adding the style creation tools as a marketing ploy (so few use them, it's not like they would actually be missed at the bottom line), the main makers tend to hoard the good styles VERY tightly, offering just a few as a bonus to their existing customers, but keeping the vast majority to use as ROM styles on the NEXT model they try to sell us. And we generally go and buy those arrangers not necessarily for the new OS features, but simply for those styles.

If this weren't the case, one would expect a LOT more new features and sounds in most model releases...

Primarily, I believe the problem has come because the manufacturers have made NO effort to 'protect' the style ROM and RAM. It must be tough for any of the skilled programmers to get a decent return on their investment in time and effort, when it is a simple thing to trade around these styles like bubblegum cards as soon as they are released.

The recording industry has learned how to protect MP3's and AAC's, to the point where the iTunes store is making millions, if not billions, from SELLING something that a few years ago we all traded around for free. It is LONG past time that the arranger industry provided a secure data area and an individual ID per arranger, that would allow style creators to guarantee that their work was being used by ONLY the person who paid for it.

THEN, the style creators could drop their prices almost to iTunes Store levels... $1 a style, $2 a style, prices like that for QUALITY styles, in the knowledge that EVERYONE who used the style had payed for it. They would make a LOT more money, which would make them make more styles, and we wouldn't be sitting around having this discussion about how difficult it is for normal arranger players (who don't tend to be the great players in the first place!) to make their own styles

Finally, I think it is LONG past time that manufacturers should provide powerful computer based tools to make style creation, or at least style ASSEMBLY, into the pig stupid, graphical drag and drop way it OUGHT to be. IF slaking the thirst for new styles is a selling point, something like this would be FAR more popular (because of it's ease) that convoluted on-board ones. It's probably safe to say that no-one with a MOTL or TOTL arranger is without a computer too.

Just as sequencers are FAR easier to work on a computer, with great big graphical displays that show you everything that you need at one time, style creation and assembly would be a far easier task on a computer. Drop it from the OS (make room for more practical live stuff, like locking one part while you go to another style, things like that) and leave it to the tool that does it best...

The question that was asked, was personal experiences of the Tyros 3 and PA2X, however as the Tyros 3 is not released till next month, the question cannot currently be answered.
However, having been at the launch of Tyros 3 and the following demos, (Including stage performances of Tyros 3 and PA2x) if you need 76 notes then PA2x is the only solution, however if you can mange with 61 notes, then it is Tyros 3 all the way. (Make sure you try them both first, as my opinion could be totally different to yours)

Bill

Diki ... could not agree with you more!! You hit the nail on the head! Period!

Diki,
I too...agree. And it wish it would happen as then we could begin getting lot's of top quality styles available.
Especially for Korg, where less are currently available than Yamaha ( Roland too?)

Lee

I've taken the 'Protected Styles' issue to it's own thread: http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/018187.html

Perhaps we can discuss it there...

(See...! Even hijackers can reform, occasionally... )

Thanks Andrea!

Best,
Mike

I for one don't want to or enjoy getting mired in the left brain part of having a keyboard. I guess thats why although the Korg had a lot of tools , I did not want to spend the time digging into them. I want already created patches and styles. I want a place when I can Buy them if I like them

I would have kept the Korg had it had some more styles to buy. But no one seems to like progaramming them and I won;t chance an Ebay Disc with minor changes to a current style.

I will get inside the mixes and effects, filters and stuff like that. The motorized screen was a waste of money and served no purpose. That money would have better been spent creating more styles.