Clearly you are operating on a production level that is quantum steps over that of a novice to intermediate level keyboard player. My point in my post about the Tyros 3 is that it's pretty simple to operate and you can from day 1 output some decent sounding music (assuming you know at least a few rudimentary chords and can either play by ear or read music).

So the end-user feedback from this instrument in my mind is immensely positive and rewarding. I've read some people's posts that suggest the Tyros 3 is an 'expensive toy' and nothing more. Well, even if it's true, it's a toy that no one is gonna throw rocks at on Christmas morning, I can tell you that!

The subtle nuances that are possible with and without the SA2 buttons are dazzling on several of the voices, notably the saxes, clarinet, harmonica and even the classical guitar (which I think is phenomenally great sounding).

If you tried to purchase all of the instruments that are contained in this one single unit, it would cost many times its price point, and you would have great difficulty properly playing instruments like the sax, clarinet, violin and even guitar if you were a keyboardist at heart.

Yes, I know there are samplers and modules and computer software solutions and yada yada, but if you just want to sit down, flip a couple of switches and produce great-sounding music in moments (not days), the Tyros 3 offers that kind of simple fulfillment.

Could you call up one of a thousand software programs, VSTi sounds, yada yada and make a 24-track production that sounds better than the Tyros? I betcha you could, yeah. Could you do all that in the few seconds it takes to turn on the Tyros 3, select a music style or locate an appropriate style family via music finder and begin playing nearly instantly? No, I really don't think so.

So, to each their own, based on their own skills and how demanding their ears and/or audience might or might not be.

There will always be a "better sounding" device, be it software, sampler, hardware module or hardware device. That's the nature of the musical beast, and the end result of the endless creativity of the men and women who build this stuff so that music junkies can realize some or all of their potential.

My point in writing about the S900/Tyros 3 is that both these instruments fill a niche in the marketplace and can give back some good times to those who invest in them.

I bought a pretty high end Gibson Les Paul guitar, yes, it sounded really nice. Compared to what the Tyros 3 can do for around the same price point, though, the Les Paul was a wrong purchase for me. Far too limited in terms of what I myself could create alone onstage with just a single instrument and amplifier. Even as a given that the guitar can have added effects (wah, fuz, chorus, yada yada) either by foot boxes or via 'modeling' amplifiers, still and all nowhere NEAR the amazing array of musical styles I can get out of either the S900 and/or the Tyros 3.

Still others have written the Tyros 3 isn't "that much" better than the Tyros 2, and I'm sure that's not altogether wrong.

Yet I'll venture a bet that many T2 owners would swap straight across for the T3 if Yamaha made an open offer to do so at no cost.

Just the convenience features of the sliders, the instant hard disk record, and the flexibility of the new Super-Articulation 2 voices would be enough for many to go that extra step to the T3.

Because it's so pricey though, many are holding back waiting for the next-generation to be released by Yami, Korg, or Roland.

Like cars, the upgrades are constant. What we're all waiting for is the "quantum leap" in quality, I alluded to the OASYS boards... yes, they're more flexible, can do more, yada yada, but they are about twice the price point.

So you pays your money and you takes your choice, no?

robert

Robert,

Although my post followed yours, it was more a reply ( albeit late ) to Kingfrog about the idea of incorporating an M3 to go along with his current setup. I find it to be a worthwhile addition to my setup, and pretty much like every other board or software I've ever had, it isn't the end all solution or tool for every situation either, just the right tool for me in a lot of them.

It has to do with the kind of stuff I like to play and write, much of which is based around synth driven sounds. I'm no "analog elitist" either, and while I still love many of the vintage boards, I'm also glad I don't have to try to repair them ( Vsti's are a great thing, even if they aren't always exact replications ). I'm very much into the digital driven modern soundscapes that the old boards weren't necessarily that good for. My musical heroes are guys like Rick Wright, Rick Wakeman, Emerson, etc. Today I can add Tim Conrardy to that list. Not because of what he can play ( he can play ), but because of the soundscapes and patches he has made for so many hardware and software synths. He comes up with patches I could never dream of doing on my own

I still love the blues, hence the moniker, and I like jazz fusion and prog rock ala King Crimson, Yes, Pink Floyd etc, along with Some folk, but these days I'm also into playing and making electronica and ambient music. The T2 and my PA80 both make ok starting points for an idea, but for most of my preferred genres neither is a particularly good choice for much beyond that. They are here mainly because I also play out live (solo) on occasion, though not as much as I once did. Hence the upgrades to PA800 and T3 ( from T2 ) weren't a priority for me, but I'm sure for those who use an arranger more than I do, they would be a fair consideration. I actually considered moving to the PA800 or PA2. In fact, while I was at the store giving the PA800 a serious workout, right next to it sat the M3, and the rest as they say was history. Sure a lot of T2 owners would go to the T3 if it were a free crossgrade. I would.. Unfortunately that's not reality is it ?

As for the Les Paul.. me too... I bought one. Very much apples and oranges vs a keyboard no ? More like night and day to me. My problem is that I'm a mediocre guitar player. That said, in most situations I'd rather take the time to learn a piece on it that I need in a song than spend the time trying to replicate it in software and samples. I can do the latter pretty convincingly btw, not because I'm so talented but simply because it's possible with today's technology. But.. SA voices, Sample sets, Real Guitar / Real Strat or what have you, it is never quite the same, not without a lot of fiddling around. Probably doesn't matter to a lot of folks, hence the arranger or sample set works, but you don't capture all the nuances with a single keyboard performances, even in today's world.

Here's a challenge to those that say they can.. Pick any Nick Drake song. If you're at all familiar with him it's pretty simple stuff right ? No drums, no bass.. just Nick singing and playing his Guild M20 / Martin D28. Recreate one of his songs in one take on any sample set, keyboard, whatever you want. Heck take a few takes.. I doubt anyone ever gets close. I've tried. I can hit every note at exactly the right time, and it still isn't really close to the same. I'd need many more hours to get every picking sound, every scrape, every body tap, every pull off into the sequencer. Is that being picky ? Sure it is, but it is what it is. A lot of the beauty in that type of music is that the starkness of it allows you to hear every nuance of the guitar he plays. It's simple music but the guitar work is very intricate. I'd rather spend the time to learn to play the real thing when possible. Fortunately for me, most of my music isn't driven by intricate guitar work. If it was, I'd grudgingly have to go the sample / SA voice route more often until ( and if ) I could get better on guitar.

Lack of true real time controls was always a concern of mine on most of my past and present arrangers, and is still why to this day I have an affinity for the Casio MZ2000 ( it has sliders ). The factory styles aren't particularly good in it, and some ( not all ) of the acoustic sounds are well.. very Casio like, but the good news is that many of the synth sounds are too, but more in the vintage casio synth way and that's a really good thing for me. It's real time synth editing tools available rival those of the better workstations of the same era, while style creation vs my other two arrangers is a breeze by comparison, with every tool I need right onboard, including a midi to style converter that works quite well.

I used to post a lot more here, but the constant bickering got to be a bit much for me. Not that I walk above others, because I can find myself getting right into the mix too. Plus I tend to be very long winded when I do post ( like this.. lol ). In hindsight though it was a blessing in disguise, as I realized it was consuming time that I could better spend learning and developing new musical ideas along with actually making music.

Cheers,

AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

I'm guessing you're referring to acoustic type voices. I think Roland put a good portion of their "voice" effort into the Synth, Synth Bass, and Lead sounds on the Fantom G. I also think Roland was coddling up to the hip hop and electronic/techno generation with the Fantom G; in fact, the whole previous Fantom line as well in my opinion.

There are many excellent acoustical type voices on the Fantom G in my opinion, but there are several 'underwhelming' ones as well, such as in the Woodwind section, some of the Acoustic Guitars, etc. What is fantastic is you can edit the patches to your heart's content and it can go a long way in getting the sound you want. Trouble is, many people don't want to get their hands dirty and sculpt the sounds to their own needs and satisfaction, and instead rely totally on the factory preset sounds.

I agree though that Roland could have done better by providing a more profuse supply of excellent acoustic type voices. Maybe they reasoned if they gave it too much sparkle from the get go that they wouldn't be able to entice Fantom G owners to fork over the cash for the new ARX cards hitting the market? I guess they call that marketing shrewdness huh?

All the best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

If you guys aren't careful you might "scare" your audience away.. Probably scare a cat off a gut wagon too.. Now that would take some doing! From the looks of it though, I think you guys may be up to the task... lol.. HA HA!

Just kidding Diki. You guys might want to think about shaving or trimming the dead split ends off your hair once in a while though.

Looks like you guys are having fun. Sun, surf, and seagulls. Now that's what I call relaxing! I wish I could join you!

All the best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

Be nice if the Tyros could be loaded as a VSTI. INS files for it are terrible because of Yamaha's patch scheme.

I just bought and am waiting for a used Sonic Cell that can be used as a VSTi, and am going to give it a run.I have the drum problem solved with ToonTracks so I don't know what the Korg will offer I don't already have. The Sonic Cell should be of benefit live with its SEQ/Mp3 playback ability allowing the notebook to remain home.

Roland has always coddled the current sound market. Its part of their success. I have had issues with all brands though because I write using as generic voicing as possible.I have always subscribed to the thought "If a tune from my Studio is going to be deemed "dated" it won't be because of the sound set" ever since the gated Phil Collins snare sound in the 80's became all the rage.

Good songs will stand accompanied by generic real instrumental voicing no matter what year they are written.

That V-Piano sure is something though. That's getting as close to a 9' Steinway as ANY keyboard EVER HAS in my opinion. No samples either, all strictly *physical* modeling. Amazing.

Just for drill, I recorded two songs on my Fantom G recently. One showcases "acoustic" sounds and the other gives a taste of the Fantom G synth sounds. The acoustic sounds will give people who never heard or used a Fantom G a preview of it's acoustic sound capability. Those sounds are Piano, Guitar, Brass, Strings, Sax, and Drums/Percussion. There are a couple of Vox voices used so please forgive me for straying a little into the synth arena okay?

On the Synth demo I used the Fantom G Sequencer to record the rhythm part (played in realtime, then played that part back in realtime through the Fantom G sequencer, and playing the 'lead' synth part in realtime (w/right hand) and recording everything into my DAW - realtime. Got that?

Oh.., the Synth one I kept in .wav format because it is so short in length. The other is in .mp3 format with a time of 2min/37sec.

Enjoy!

Aint Too Proud To.mp3

A Little Synth.wav

All the best,
Mike

[This message has been edited by keybplayer (edited 02-06-2009).]

Since when has it been some newly discovered secret that Roland coddled the hip hop market? Shoot.., that's not (new) news for Roland or ANY other major workstation maker. Synth workstations have ALWAYS been geared more toward electronica. A lot of that has started to change over the last few years though.

Not too long ago it wasn't uncommon to hear that arranger keyboards had better acoustic voices (they simply did have better acoustic voices). The synth makers over the years got smart and started moving some of those higher end acoustic voices from their arranger line to their pro workstation models. The ENTIRE Yamaha Motif line is proof enough of how they've done this. SA voices were a "trickle up" for the Motif XS (many including myself still feel the SA voices were better on the Tyros 2 than they were on the Motif XS though).

The problem is this..., the keyboard makers got smart and realized the need for good acoustic instruments in their pro workstations but made damn sure they still produced synths that do what the do best and that's MODERN MUSIC. Problem is we don't have this TRICKLE DOWN effect in the pro arranger line. The synths are kicking ass at acoustic and more traditional styles of music now.., but the pro arrangers still suck donkey butt for ANYTHING modern.

Nice..., that synth part was a great flash back man I felt this sudden urge to grab a can of Tab Cola and flip my collar

And Thats why my "discovery" of Arranger keyboards just two years ago became an Epiphany. I had tons of modules in search of the Holy Grail....GOOD non synthy sounding acoustic sounds. I bought the Proteus One for three sounds, the Roland U220 for two, The QSR for a few, the Proteus 2000 for a few more, The Triton was a God Send, Then I heard a PSR3000. A PSR s900, the Korg PA2x (bought it) A Tyros 3 (Sold Korg bought Tyros) Sold everything else...

Never jumped into the VSTi market with both feet because I always built PCs in the sweet spot pricing area which were taxed by too many software synths and samplers.

Now I have for my needs, the best of all worlds, a Great (low resource hog) Drum VSTI in the ToonTrack Product, A Great VSTi Sampler in the Dimension Pro, A great Style Generator in the T3 and a ton of great some great real instrument voices........No excuses. We will see what Roland's Sonic Cell brings to the Mix if anything. No need for the B4 VSTi. Tyros is fine. For those pesky Synth only sounds Cakewalk comes with a whole host of pure wave based synth plug ins with all kinds of knobs and dials and a Beatscape program to make loops if thats the flava of the day.



[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 02-06-2009).]