Quoting Chris/newman

"Thanks for the download, it is an improvement and thanks to you, I think I’ve also discovered that my speakers maybe back to front - lower notes play on the RH speaker and high notes play on the left".


Chris,
Interesting you should say that. I had previously found with Ty3 that voices panned left or right in mixing console would play through the "wrong" side speakers. I had to swap the line out jacks around, even though they had been "correct" as far as markings were concerned.
I'd previously found it necessary to do that with Ty2, discovered when recording from line out into PC.
John

MusiCo,
Nice review,
Just curious if the PA2 was a Version 2 OS or the old stuff?

OS2 has a lot of really good acoustic sounds as compared to 1.11, With the addition of Defined Nuance Control feature.

Lee

[This message has been edited by leeboy (edited 11-29-2008).]

Lee, thx for the compliment. The PA2 was a V 2.0 OS, finding the DNC sounds a huge improvement. The Yammie sounds have more "depth" in the acoustic department i.m.o. and overall the number of "lifelike" acoustic instruments on the Yammie was greater, also taking in count the acoustic drums etc.

But I have to say, PA2 had good nylon string guitar and tenor sax, and I guess with a little tweaking done to it, it could sounds a bit more "soulfull".
For my likings, the T3 was more realistic, I guess because of the use of a larger amount of samples per tone.

MusiCo,
Thanks for the clarification...on the OS2.

Personally I am going to spend some time with a T3, preferably here at my house on a 30 day test.

Depending on the side by side tests with my PA2...strictly on sound quality as I NEED and WANT...I will either sell the PA2 and keep the T3 or return the T3.

If it was up to keybed, features, programming MIDI implementation, flexibility etc the Korg will win hands down...but we will see how sound compares...playing my type of music ...the way I play it!

My guess right now is I will be keeping the PA2.

Lee

I'm looking forward to playing one. We'll have one available at the Shreveport Jam in January.
As for the drums and bass, I must be from Missouri: Show Me! Not that I don't WANT to believe, but I've heard it all before. I hope this time it's for real.
MusiCo, may I add my welcome to the forum and my thanks for a great, in-depth review from an obviously knowledgeable player.
Newman, same to you and thanks for your review.
DonM

Amen to that, Lee !
I'm curious : which sounds are you going to focus on in your compare ?



[This message has been edited by MusiCo (edited 12-02-2008).]

Don, if played over a high-quality speaker system, the drums will be amazing. I know with the tyros 1, 2 they also stated improvement in the drums-department.
This time it's for real, after being impressed with the acoustic sounds it was the drums that seduced me into ordering the T3.

Can someone confirm that they're actually NEW drum samples? As stated previous models were said to have improved drums. Are these new samples in the Tyros 3 or did Yamaha just make DSP changes.., and possibly back off the compression to make the older kits sound better?

MusiCo,
Well, mostly orchestrial sounds. And all Piano types. Strings are important to me, especially solo violin, cello.

I guess really the solo violins, strings, clarinets, sax, flute, oboe, all horns (I especially like french horns), upright bass, and all other orchestial stuff. Also, other sounds used in solo meleody.

I could care less if they took all the synth sounds out. Well, maybe that's an exageration.

I will be concerned about the sample quality, consistancy of sound and vibrato note-note on the entire instruments range. I will also care about the keybed feel as compared to my PA2. Even though that will not be a killer as 61 is not enogh for me and because of Yamaha's stubbord ness! I will have a 76 note MIDI board under it.
It sure will be interesting.

Lee

Squeak,

All the drumkits sound better, not because of changes to the DSP settings, but because the DSP are truely brand new processors. The effects quality and characteristics are much better and as a result I can imagine they just MUST have reprogrammed the DSP on nearly each and every sound.

I can't find any proof for this, but after hearing it, I'd put my money on the new Rock-kit being a brand new sampled one.
But then again, if they made it sound this good by tweaking the DSP's, I wouldn't mind that it's not "new".

Your question indirectly triggered some long had frustration of mine : people expecting new arranger/synth models to be all-new revolutionary stuff. I can't help sharing my opinion with you guys, I'm sorry for that...but it's cheaper than the shrink :-) So here it goes :

In the last twelve years orso the realism of synthetically generated "acoustic instruments" has made a huge,giant, larger-than-large leap. Right ?
Now compare Tyros3's breathy tenorsax with the 10 year old tenorsax the VL-1 gave us and the difference is not all that big anymore. The Virtual Acoustic Modelling technology didn't make it past that stage : it hasn't evolved, despite of being used in the VL-7, VL-70m and VL boards for the Motif XS and so on. On the contrary, the soundquality became worse and worse 'cause ever cheaper and less DSP's where used in an attempt to make this technology payable.
We, the arranger/synth customers, didn't embrase such radical technology and didn't want to pay the prices. I believe that VAM was lightyears ahead of it's time : it gave some analog-type of modelling and realism at a time when "digitallity" ruled. People didn't see it's worth and so the PCM (sample) technique is the only one to evolve to this day. I think we are approaching the limits : extreme costs in a growing number of samples per tone will definine that limit. That's the reason no new model of a synth/arranger or what so ever will be a "revolution" in the acoustic sounds department anymore. That's also the reason many manufacturers re-use samples/sounds and only 'tweak' them, because it's way too expensive to keep making new ones and the costs outweigh the improvements.
That's why I find the new DSP's a revolutionary improvement ; that's an area where they (Yamaha) still could make a lot of improvement.

i.m.o. most of the future instrument releases won't be a big improvement and upgrading will become more and more questionable as the new models will become loaded with "goodies" only there to tempt you to think it's a "revolution".

(PS : yes, I know Korg and Roland using "reed"-modelling, Virtual Acoustic Boards and so on, but they haven't by any mile approached the realism and soundquality of the VL and VX. They just copied part of the idea and there it seems to end. I also don't see/hear anything about large investments into R&D for these kinds of techniques from any of the major companies).