Well, at least you're helping the Japanese economy...

Hey Chony,

I got my Tyros3 two days ago. I've also had a Tyros2 for two years. After playing T3 for two evenings, and then playing my T2 today I think you underestimate the difference between the two keyboards. The sound quality and voices......not just the SA2 ones.......are so much better on T3. There is certainly more than a 3% difference between a T2 and T3. The newest technologies bring better voices with each model. Anyone who is thinking of buying a new T2 should at least play a T3 in person first. I really think they would be unhappy with T2 after playing a T3. The voice and sound quality is improved that much. The key feel is better on Tyros3. For me, the improved sounds are why I always upgrade to new boards every few years. Mind you......I was one of those skeptics who couldn't fathom how T3 could sound that much better than T2. Playing my T2 the past few weeks, and reading the posts of the earlier T3 receivers, I still was wondering if all that money was well spent on T3. I can tell you that after doing side by side comparisons thru the same sound system, I know I made the right decision and will be very happy with Tyros3! -charley

LOL REFERENCE Monitors.....

I understand you "confusion" regarding a $4000 keyboard and a pair of old Alesis Monitor Ones. I have the same confusion when I learn of people paying $16,000 for a PMC BB5 Center speaker in a home surround system that was mixed on $3000 Genelecs!!!

They are what I have been using for many many years, I "know" them much like some producers "know" and carry around the old Yamaha NSMs to this day with (tissue on the tweeters.)to do mixes on.

(I do have a powered sub)

I think people need to understand what "reference monitors" mean,

When you first get a pair of monitors I don;t care if they are Klipsch, Radio Shack or Genelec you still need a reference when you first buy them or one may over compensate for the speaker's deficiencies to one's own ear. There are no "perfect" reference monitors. There are more "accurate" monitors but when one gets used to a pair they know the idiosyncrasies.

I used to use CDs recorded by whomever is closest to the type of song I am working on and track them for A/B next to my mix. I would ensure the "edge" frequencies match up with my mix. Its easy to over or under compensate for EQ on any monitor without the reference of a CD recorded in a $100,000 Studio.

But Over the years I got to know them and know where the frequencies should sit to sound ok on any system. Getting a pair of Genelecs or Any other monitor system now would have me starting all over to find thier reference. Im am to accustomed to the Alesis. In fact years ago, I did buy a pair of Mackie 824s years ago and EQ'd the Alesis to match them and them brought the 824s back. Now working in a Music store I can get any monitors at very good prices but I "know" these guys and they still do the job.

The bottom line is if you "know" your monitors and learned using references from professional recordings you can mix on any speakers. I have already replaced the tweeters twice on them (and have a few extras in my closet). I don't want to have to learn a new set of monitors.

Besides one of the beauties of the Yamaha Arrangers is they need very little EQ tweaking. They already sound like a CD much to many people's chagrin.

What you don't see is the Bose LT1 System my wife uses for her mixes (and the small PA speaker behind the Alesis as well) She prefers mixing on the systems she will actually use.




[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 10-17-2008).]

I agree totally with your first two assertions. But definitely not your last. The T3 is far more than an upgrade. The PSR900 is closer to the T2 and a mile away from the T3. More sounds, Better sounds, whole new EFX engine, Correct guitar chording, real time slider controllers, SA2 controllers, I would say the PSR900 is 2/3 the T2 and 1/6 the T3. Then you have the capability of additional Voice Packs from Yamaha..I had the PA2x. If I wanted to play live I would have kept it, It had too many features I would never use and those it had that were important to me, the T2 did not have the T3 now has,

Dig a little deeper...



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 10-16-2008).]

"John Leventhal did the bulk of his mixing on a pair of small Radio Shack speakers. (Leventhal, a famous New York City-based guitarist, songwriter, and engineer, made his mark by producing Shawn Colvin's acclaimed 1989 record, Steady On.) Leventhal owns both a pair of Yamaha NS-10Ms and a pair of Radio Shack Optimus 7s. But he prefers the latter."

Mixing depends a great deal on the person doing the mixing. The speakers are only one part of the equation and as you can see from the above example, not necessarily the most important part either.

Best,
Mike

Exactly. The key word is "reference" monitors which seems like an oxymoron as no monitors are truly an accurate representation of the full frequency of a given piece of music without a Sub woofer yet many very good mixes came from and still come from those pesky Yamaha NSMs the Alesis (and others) used as a reference in their designs..

No monitors I know of with 8" drivers on the bottom will project 40hz physically into one's chest like a sub, Yet many created great mixes on them.

Hey Kingfrog,
I noticed we share a Strat VG in common. Do you like it, love it, or something else? MIne has a rosewood neck ( my fav ) and I love the s/b body too. I really like the fact that I have a tone control for the 5th position on the p/us.
Your thoughts overall?
I like it about 25% better than a regular Strat. I like the detunings better than the different sounds....would rather have a piezo picup than the models they gave us.

I guess I'm more of the 'I want flat!' school of mixing. Sure, I've used NS-10's in the studio, but those were primarily to reveal flaws, and have a studio to studio transportability of mixes thing. I have to confess that, when I'm noodling at home, I don't want to have to 'imagine' what it would sound like on a full system, I just want to hear it that way!

But thanks for pointing out the powered sub... That probably goes a long way to rectifying the Monitor One's abysmal bass response!

My 824's are the ultimate arranger accessory! And still 1/3 the cost of the arranger.

BTW, does your wife run a mono Bose system, or does she go stereo for the piano? Perhaps she prefers the Roland's because they collapse to mono a bit more graciously than Yamaha do?

Worth the additional money vs Regular American for sure. But now that I have great guitars and distortion EFX on the T3 I am using it less and less. I may cash it out for $1100 and use the money to buy something i will use more. Yep the T3 acoustic is better than the Modeled Start. The 12 Srring is nice though.

I can certainly understand wanting to hear as accurate mix as possible. I just don't know what that is. SO I have to depend on reference recordings generated in a real studio using top notch gear. Between the Bose 701s in our Surround System, the car units and various boom boxes we can get a good balanced sound.

My wife uses a single Bose system. She (and I ) feel the clarity and convenience of the system more than makes up for thr lack of Stereo spread.

As far as the Roland Digitals she has always preferred the RD700 and the previous incarnation over the Yamaha. (AFTER she sold her CP70 the Rolands were not only much lighter but she likes the Piano sound and is and has become a reference against which all others are judged. The stereo collapse is not a factor. All sound generators have mono outs now which does not adversely affect the stereo phasing issues.