I'd think that as long as you can get them to clock together, all will be good. Expecting much more from Yamaha's pretty stripped down MIDI implementation is optimistic, I'm afraid... (and it's not just Yamaha)

Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the complete dumbing down of arranger MIDI capabilities over the last few years? My old RA90, and G1000 had MUCH better MIDI implementation that the G70. I can't speak for Yamaha, perhaps they've ALWAYS sucked but it's as if the manufacturers have decided that not enough people use TWO or more keyboards or modules anymore, now they have made them a bit better (but still not good enough!).

If you are having issues with connectivity, I encourage you to make a BIG noise to the dealer's manufacturer reps and tech support... Perhaps if they are woken up to the fact that there ARE many of us with more than a cheap PSR in our living rooms, they MIGHT pull their finger out of their... well, you know where!

At the very least, two different arrangers from different manufacturers should be able to synchronize clocks, and basic style division navigation... Intros, Endings, Variations and Fills. Just THAT would make assembling the perfect arranger (whatever you want THAT to be!) a MUCH easier task...

Hi Diki,
me. The PA800's capabilities are pretty good.
My SD1's midi is complex, ( maybe it's just the wording in the manual & the terminolgy that's off??)
& my psr1500 as a controller is pretty poor.

My G800 was great ( so were most of my other earlier keyboards) My arranger modules had to sync to an acoustic midi piano at the time. ( Yamaha Disklavier ).

Style recording ( if a pc was involved) if I remember correctly , had to be done via midi pc/g800 hook up , so the midi implementation had to be good.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Diki:
[B]
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed the complete dumbing down of arranger MIDI capabilities over the last few years? My old RA90, and G1000 had MUCH better MIDI implementation that the G70. I can't speak for Yamaha, perhaps they've ALWAYS sucked but it's as if the manufacturers have decided that not enough people use TWO or more keyboards or modules anymore, now they have made them a bit better (but still not good enough!).



------------------
best wishes
Rikki

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/PA800_StyleMaking/

I just wish that the manufacturers would either get their heads together, and decide on a COMMON MIDI spec for arranger navigation, or let the users decide their own... Most modern controllers have a 'learn' function. Something like this would be a boon for hooking two arrangers together.

You see, that is my main goal... Roland's MIDI spec is already pretty decent for general communication (although it is convoluted to control external gear from keyboard Parts but not from style or sequence - go figure!), but try to hook two arrangers together, have one play some parts of the style, have the other play the rest, and it's virtually impossible.

No two manufacturers implement style division navigation the same way, and they are ALL set in stone. I have said for a long time that, if this was easy (or even doable!) I would already have several arrangers. And I'm pretty sure so would MANY here. Shore up the weak points of your arranger (they ALL have them!) with the strong points of another... This would result in a MASSIVE increase in arranger sales, IMO.

I cannot understand why the industry doesn't see this. All it is is a tiny bit of code, and a sit down to decide the standard. And arranger sales would increase...

Maybe it's just TOO obvious?

Don't get me started.....

MIDI implementation on the T3 sucks badly. If anyone uses Cakewalk Sonar check out the INS file. My guess is the manufacturers are not considering people actually "Need" anything else because well....it's an "arranger" not a workstation...and certainly not an Arranger/Workstation although one can create 16 tracks of original material on it.I guess thats the "workstation part."

UH no a Fantom G series is a Workstation. Then the M3 Them the Motiff. Why?

Because on the Fantom everything looks like it should Mixers,Effect racks, just like computer software. The manual can stay in the plastic. It's the most naturally "intuitive" workstations I have come across.
The Korg manual is War and Peace and it's needed. The Motif is well...the Motif not as bad as the Korg but not as good as the Roland. Just talking from a pure stand alone workstation not voices or Arps. Voices are subjective.

I don't think anyone who has had time on a Fantom series would not say it's a nice intuitive workstation and could find their way around it without digging into a manual for awhile. Now if only Roland could come up with great voices......


[This message has been edited by Kingfrog (edited 01-10-2009).]

I am a PSR S900 owner who 'stepped up' to the Tyros 3 after about 8 months with the PSR.

Overall, the Tyros is an amazing product, and like many have said, it has it's pluses and minuses, like any other instrument.

What appeals to me about the Tyros is the level of realism on many of the SA2 sounds (I refer to the 2 Saxes and the Clarinet).

I don't know that any Grand Piano off a synth is going to be 'all that and a bag of chips' to the truly discerning ear, but in the 'real world', I think the Tyros 3 is 'decent' and 'acceptable'. The cocktail piano sound is nice too.

To me, the Tyros 3 offers a way for a musician of almost any level to put out some great sounding music. It might not be "studio quality" it might not win any Grammys, but if you are a solo player, the Tyros 3 will fulfill that "full band" sound out of just one instrument/arranger OTB, and that's saying quite a lot.

Some of the low-end boards are so tinky sounding they're embarrasing. The S900 and the big brother T3 output a level of realism (especially if you're running the right compression setting and using decent speakers or keyboard amp(s)) that I find most folks feel is quite acceptable.

No keyboard that sells for the 3 to 4k range is going to be all things to all people. Many of the synth/arrangers on the market are so complicated, the average owner can't properly configure it or get any songs to sound decent.

I find the Song Finder, while somewhat slow and cumbersome to use, has some very nice "cover" backings for many of the popular songs of various eras.

A friend has an Oasys 76 board, and for the 8000 dollar cost, ok, it's more of a 'showpiece'. The Motif is simply in plain language too much of a beast for us older players to lug around to gigs or offsite locations.

I think half of being a happy Tyros 3 owner is discovering how to get the most sound out of the board, and being able to 'articulate' those sounds with note falls. The harp is itself a joy, and I have to say Star Wars midi on the S900, well, it's pretty danged impressive for just ONE instrument to voice a symphony!

The T3's string section and french horns are warm and realistic (to me). The drum sounds sound more punchy and authentic than the S900 (to me).

If your goal is just one board that will do a great job overall with many different types of music, I think the Tyros 3 is a sensible choice.

Also, the available RAM slots mean you will be able to buy new custom-voices directly from Yamaha as they are invented/released.

This shows a degree of flexibility which may enhance the longetivity of the ownership experience. If I think that they'll be coming with new piano sounds, new organ sounds, or new whatever sounds down the road, that has appeal to me. Something new around the corner.

I personally think most of the backing tracks are well done and sound good "in real life". If you watch some of the performance videos on YouTube featuring the Tyros 3, I think your ears will tell you this is a quality board for its price point.

Yes, there are some boards that sound better on some "certain" instrument types. But for overall value and ease of use, the Tyros was simply a "must buy" instrument.

The rear power button is a non issue, and is offset (IMHO) by the FRONT USB port which is great for carrying those extra tracks around on.

Yamaha support has been very user friendly, on both boards. I made friends with one of the techs who has built his own "custom" voices for the S900 (he hasn't done anything for the T3 yet), and some of those are very nice.

The slider bars on the Tyros are a huge improvement for 'on the fly' sound balancing during a performance, the S900 requires you to use those tiny up/down arrows, which in plain language are awkward to manipulate in real time while playing a song.

Overall, the Tyros is a great board from many perspectives. Of course beauty is in the ear of the beholder. The aftertouch keyboard on the T3 is nicer and more expressive than the S9's board which lacks that feature.

The octave shift buttons on the left side are OK to me, and being able to hit them together to return to 'default' is a nice touch.


robert

The M3 is a monster. Loving mine, though on some of the bread and butter acoustic sounds, even with V2, it isn't quite up to snuff vs my Yamahas ( T2 and Motif ES... and I realize how subjective that can be). For synths, soundscapes, drums, and traditional keyboard stuff... especially the 4 way Grand Piano, I really like it. The Karma funtion is quite powerful, and when you add the Karma MW software, the possibilities seem unlimited.

I think of the Cakewalk instrument files as being part of an almost obsolete technolgy, much in the way the soundfont format is a dinosaur in the sampling world. Instead, with the M3, I can open the entire control. surface up as a Vst in any VST compatible host, including Sonar, and can control every function that can be controlled from the keyboard itself, in addition to other functions that cannot be controlled from within the hardware.

In effect, my M3 has become a module, mainly because my Motif sits below the laptop that I use my software DAWs on, and acts as my midi controller for it. That of course changes only when I feel the need to use the M3's sliders in real time.


AJ

Hey Donny, here is a twist on that darkness test you mentioned. Next time you come to the forum cover up the left hand side of the screen with the poster's names and guess who posted the messages

I bet you could do it too lol

Nigel....Im gonna try that .....after all these years I bet I could definitly pick out a few just by their posts & writing footprint alone for sure.
Good idea Nigel!

It would be EASY, Nigel!

"If I think that they'll be coming with new piano sounds, new organ sounds, or new whatever sounds down the road, that has appeal to me. Something new around the corner."

All they need are new DRUM sounds. Ones that sound like drums. Can a good rim shot be that hard to do? All the other companies can do it.
DonM

Nigel, I could probably tell from punctuation (or the lack thereof ) alone!

So many spellcheckers, so little time!