"Agreed. It is a blatant misrepresentation of the Audya."
"Ketron never said that the audio track of a style played by itself would be perfect. That is not the function of the audio track in the style."
So that means, "if you can live with the Audya's limitations then it should suit you quite well?"
I'm not sure many people would be willing to fork over 5 (count 'em $$$$$ thousand *PLUS* VAT and/or Tax) for such a handicapped piece of equipment??? Maybe that's why AJ wouldn't let anybody play the Audya at the last Jam if the truth were known?? Because, perhaps he didn't want anybody to find out any of the Audya's apparent flaws in the process when people actually played it? You realize that the "cat would have been let out of the bag" and the truth would be known right? Because 99.9% of arranger keyboardists (except Fran and Gary
) use more chords than just major/minor.
Of course we now know the "results" anyway; because the truth still came out, just a little later than we had hoped.
All the best,
Mike
PS: To each his own I suppose. But for me the Audya is looking more and more like a white elephant in sheep's clothing. Whatever that means.
You decide for yourself...
Maybe things will get better after it is "finished" eh?
Apparently they're selling it unfinished I guess huh?
Roland did the same thing with the Fantom G but it was more of a cosmetic OS makeover (which Roland has fixed and continues to update and fix and enhance), whereas with the Audya it looks to be the very lifeblood of the beast itself apparently i.e. the "sound" itself with the sound discrepancy between audio and midi within the context of playing the Styles, which is the lifeblood of every arranger. And something that apparently
can't be fixed. Sad... but apparently true. Food for thought anyway.