Don't want to start a flame war here but would like opinions on what those who have OWNED BOTH think of eachs strengths over the other.

For example I loved the Korg but feet the Yamaha had an easier learning curve (becasue it does less)

The hardest sounds to emulate sound more authentic of the Yamaha in my case

The Korg had some really nice styles.

from a recording standpoint Yamaha sounds already polished and Mastered vs the Korg's more live in your face sound. Which is either a sound you like or not. I think they both have their place in the music world.

Just add water (vocals)but one needs to buy a Harmonizer if they really want great even though talking to Helicon at NAMM make no mistake there is more to the name on the Korg than the actual technology as well.

The Korg has many nice to have features but easy get arounds.

1.48v Phantom power (XLR mike input which isn't necessary unless you are running 100 feet away from your keyboard.) In the Studio both of these items a moot as one should use a real pre Amp even if inputing to the Korg for BG vocals.

MP3 players. Nice feature for live use but aux inputs support the same on other boards without the cross fade.

Guitar mode is really nice. but if you have great styles and/or sequences its not needed.
76 keys. Nice but we use an 88 key controller and for the organ parts the 61 keys are fine.

I did not give the Korg a really good chance becasue I was always buried in the manual and frustrated with the learning curve when I wanted the create. After awhile I did not even want to use it. My wife got a a lot of use out of it recording some styles and drum tracks for playback on her gigs.

I simply know the Yamaha better.It has a lot of users and support.I really like many of the sounds a lot better ( especially the cymbals, soprano sax, flute, and now the organ on the T3) for the Most part on the T2. The T3 cemented the deal and motivated me to sell the Korg. Not to mention the Yamaha hardware always felt a lot hardier than the Korg's buttons and sliders. Seems Korg is using the same buttons since the Triton Classic. The touch screen is nice but IM not a fan of them. I like the tactile ressponse. (No Iphone for me either)

I am one of the few who believe the T3 is a huge step up from the Tyros 3/Psr900 series.

But I have not totally given up on the Korg as I will probably pick up a PA800 to fill in the things I will miss about the sounds. Been looking at the Ketron modules as well.

My complaints about the Korg are as follows.

1)Latin styles are horrible compared to Ketron, and a very small step behind Yamaha

2)Some of the 50's rock stuff is weak.

3) I wish they had a fill to variation, which can be added via software. ex, hit variation 4 and it comes in with a fill.

I forgot the fill to variation feature. Yeah that on is a nice one on the Yamaha and the normal fills are "intelligent" depending on on what beat you select it.

I am wondering why Yamaha put so much work into Irish Pipes......I mean who really uses them much? I would rather they put the SA3 work into more common sounds like maybe ONE drum set!!!

Big Irish comeback, check Billboard

For my full comparison: http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/Forum37/HTML/017948.html

I'd wait till the Tyros 3 is on the market for 6 months......then you'll hear an educated bias opinion from REAL users.

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 09-15-2008).]

Quote Kingfrog: I am wondering why Yamaha put so much work into Irish Pipes......I mean who really uses them much? I would rather they put the SA3 work into more common sounds like maybe ONE drum set!!!

I have said exactly the same thing myself & was surprised that no one else had raised this point until now.
This voice is unlikely to be used more than once in any nights gig outside Ireland - (on most gigs, will not used at all).
I give Yamaha credit for doing such a good job on this voice but, there are many other voices which could use some improvement (and yes, drumsets would be a good candidate) and would get used many times in the average nights gig. Further proof that the big manufacturers don't really listen to what the user's want!
Tony, Sheffield UK

Too bad Yamaha doesn't incorporate what KORG has in its arrangers where you can delete all factory sounds & styles if you wish and only load & use what you need.....this is one of the things I liked about Korg & Roland arranger KBs.....Although Yamaha has some awesome sounds & styles....IMO others have much more USER editing capabilities then Yamaha....it frees up Ram & lets you make the KB YOUR OWN.

GOd No!! I have never been much of a sound editor even when I had Tritons and Junos etc. Always went with boards and modules that had what I wanted in factory patches and selected my keyboards that way ever since.

I would be spending much of my time creating sounds instead of songs. Sound creation is a hobby and an art for some. I'm glad to pay for their work.LOL

BTW the T3 screen is the same as the Roland Fantom screen in resolution. I don't know. I was quick to sell the Korg while the market was still there before the T3 release. I only lost $400 "rent" for four months. Well worth it.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 09-15-2008).]

Well speaking as an Irish man living in Ireland, I can tell you that we wouldn't use it more than once or twice in a night either. To be fair to Yamaha I have to say well done guys for making this sound as good as it is. It's unique, and should be considered as a representation of what else is in store for people who buy the T3.

With regards to a Tryos 3 - VS - Pa2X thread.
I think that in many ways this is not possible to compare because the Tyros is built around simplicity and factory sounds and styles. Because of this the ability to reprogram the keyboard is taken away from you. Not even the included software offers sampling or proper sound design.

The Pa2X on the other hand is completely reprogrammable. You can even overwrite the factory data. The problem there is that simply frightens people.

So rather than compare a pa2x to a Tyros, I think people should ask themselves what level do they think they are at, and which would suite them better.

Regards.
James.

[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 09-15-2008).]

I'm not sure whether people are really frightened, or perhaps simply more realistic as to the overwhelming amount of time (and skill) it takes to actually DO this.

Most of us buy arrangers so we can PLAY. If we want to program, we buy WS's and computer based instruments. They key word is immediacy. The problem seems to come from the fact that, although you CAN program new styles and make new sounds with the PA2Xpro, there are very few professionals doing it, and offering the work for sale. And what is out there is quite expensive.

So, it's hard to come here (as a developer or as a user and home style maker) and go 'it's easy to do this', when the high prices and VERY little choice seem to indicate it is anything BUT... Truth is, as you very well know, to make a style that even comes CLOSE to the quality of the factory ROM styles takes forever, even at the hands of the most skilled player/programmer.

And we SURE don't appear to have a surfeit of those at SZ!

Content, content, content.... without that, the most advanced arranger on the planet is a plank. Korg do an amazing job of raising it's users' expectations by having advanced style creation tools on the instrument, and factory styles that DO have different patterns for almost every chord you can think of. But the price of this is vastly increased complexity of creation, if you want to reach that bar.

Few of us can make even simple styles well. And now we have to deal with THIS? I think the ball is firmly in Korg's hands. The lack of style selection for the PA2Xpro IS hurting it. It's almost the number one criticism of the board from actual owners. A new OS is all well and good, but probably sales of the PA2 will shoot up a lot more if it had simply been a hundred new styles...

They could have charged for the OS update... But the styles need to be free (because everyone trades them around, anyway!). A $50 charge for the OS update (which could be needed to play the new styles, anyway) would subsidize a LOT of new style development by the few talented ones that can actually do it!

I've heard a LOT of user styles for Yamaha's. It's often touted as one of the main advantages of the brand. But I have to say, few of them use much of the Mega ability that make the factory styles so good (except cut and paste jobs from existing styles). Having the tools available hasn't helped Yamaha, either, I would say. It's easy to make simple styles, but the ones that get our juices flowing seem to be primarily up to the makers themselves.

Hurry up, Korg... That M3 free update sets the bar. PA2Xpro owners payed a lot MORE for their Korg. Where is THEIR 'happy ending'?

BTW, James, seeing as how you are here...

Any word about whether Korg managed to increase the speed of sample RAM load times?

For the rough and tumble, 'any song, any time' world of the arranger pro, sample load time is critical (you can't load EVERYTHING you could ever possibly want in advance - you never know what it is!).

Is it improved yet?

And, have they sent you any details about the new articulation parameters, and what can and can't be used for sample triggering?

As a leading sample developer for Korg arrangers, did they give you a 'heads up' on any of it? How does it compare to SA or SA2?

Enquiring minds want to know

Originally posted by Irishacts: "The Pa2X on the other hand is completely reprogrammable. You can even overwrite the factory data. The problem there is that simply frightens people."

If a person happened to overwrite the factory data and something went awry would it then be possible afterward to restore the Pa2XPRO to the original factory setup and recover from such a mishap? I would guess that a separate flash ram chip containing the original factory data would be required on the Pa2XPRO to be able to restore user overwritten data to the original factory data but maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, to a lot of people it would be kind of scary having that power of control and the prospect of overwriting factory data if he or she chooses. Especially if the person couldn't restore the Pa2XPRO to the original factory setup themselves if something went wrong and had to send the keyboard in to a Korg factory authorized service center to get it fixed. And the scariest part of all (if indeed a person isn't able to restore overwritten data to the factory data himself on the Pa2XPRO) would be the bill Korg hands the person for fixing it at one of their service centers. That will be 200 Euro please. Huh?? Please pay at the counter on your way out.

Best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 09-15-2008).]

Generally instruments that offer so much programming capability come with either a factory restore disc or a method via a few button pushes on power up to restore the instrument to its original factory settings. I've never heard of any newer keyboard requiring a service center to restore the factory settings, let alone charging 200 Euros to do so. My Oasys and Wersi can easily be reset to factory specs by simply loading a restore CD. I suspect the PA2X Pro would be no different.

(From the Pa2X Pro owner's manual, pag. 18):

"A backup copy of all original data is supplied with the Accessory
CD, and can be found on our website (www.korgpa.com). You
can freely download it, in case you want to restore the Pa2X to its
original status.

Hi Diki.



Yes, this is what I'm trying to get at, and if that's the case then, are we in general then saying that those who simply want to “PLAY” can only sound better over time if they keep buying new and better keyboards ?.

Where on the other hand, a workstation arranger (pa2X) can offer you all that already, and from there you can expand your technical abilities.

There's no right or wrong answer I guess, each to their own. I'm just wondering I suppose why people are happy to just PLAY when there's so much more enjoyment to be got from PLAYING with your own data rather than factory presets all the time.

Kind Regards.
James.

Well said!!
lets bring back the arranger in arranger keyboards.

Some of us are very technical and love to do the programming kind of stuff. With the PA we can go deep if we want...or just PLAY!

Rikki has been very succesful at creating some nice styles for PA. I have just got started doing some...the tools are pretty good. My biggest issue isn't learning how to do styles it's not being a good enough musician to do it...hopefully that will come.

The big thing I would like more of is song specific styles...I think the feature on the PA to use MIDI files to create a style is something that holds a lot of future for me...I want to learn how to do that.

Meanwhile there is plenty of great styles with great sounds (Drums kick ass) on board to keep me happy.

Lee

Yep, that's about it...the majority of arranger buyers will never use these features.

Doesn't matter what company...any rep or clinician will tell you that most users do not delve very deep into their arrangers.

It's mostly pick a style and play...rinse and repeat.

Biggest requests that I get are for more styles, or where to find them.

Thankfully, Yamaha has awesome third party support.

Ian

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.