it's not me speculating either....

posted by AJ on another thread:

OS 4.0 (soon to be released) will also bring some new features such as ...
* Over 300 NEW voices/sounds and Programs
* Revoiced/Modified current ROM voices/table
* Style Editor for creating styles on AUDYA
* More audio chord recognition parts
* * * Much more ...

Leezone,

Steady or you will blow a gasket, I know OS4 is coming and so is Christmas, we need to find some PA2X demos None Eastern European for Jose first, I think I am more likely to find rocking horse dropping don't you!

if OS4 is indeed around the corner, that's quite impressive

i don't know of any other manufacturer that's putting out BIG OS upgrades at such a fast pace !!!

way to go KETRON...

Leezone,

And so they should, it's their fault it's in this mess now, half finish, it should behalf price.

Tony

Tony,

if it were half price, then it would be competitive with other arrangers :-)
and LOTS more people would buy it...

but that would make too much sense !!!

They are NOT big OS upgrades. They are the delayed initial features it was SUPPOSED to ship with...

When the Audya comes out with something that WASN'T in the initial specs, wake me up, will you?

Is the Audya becoming a "Work In Progress" at the owners expense?

Guess OS 5, 6, 7, 8 ..... will come soon as well.
Other manufacturers don't need to upgrade so fast,
because betatesting was done before the shipping
to customers started!

GJ

agreed, but "others" barely uprgrade at all and problems never get fixed.

OS 4.0 already and yet it's still not up to a OS 1.0 standard the competition issue with new releases.

Only adding style edit features at this late stage is pretty embarrassing.

It depends on whether or not Ketron are charging for this "upgrade" or if they go the free upgrade route the way Korg does.

Don't say that to anyone who owns KORG arranger because they will laugh at you like giddy school girls.

KORG have issued some mega OS updates across the board.

That may be the case now, but when owned a PA80 it wasn't the case then. The problems I had with Pa80 was the deciding factor not to purchase a korg again.

I was a big korg owner in the past, i3, i30 ix300, is40, pa80.

[This message has been edited by mc (edited 10-30-2009).]

As I recall the first OS sold with Korg PA800 was absolutely horrible. Also with Roland G70.
It's not that rare.
There is no charge for the updates.
Can't understand why people who have no intention of getting one would care anyway. I suppose it is a way to justify their own choices.
DonM

Ketron has never charge for any upgrades, even the ones that were issued 5 years later.

That's cool. I did say "it depends".

Wasnt that in OS3 already? As for the other features NOTHING IS NEW, its just additions
which you, me and everyone else can create.

Why would you call it an OS when it comes only with new sounds and chords??? That means when
i started my Western Styles it was a new OS for KORG PA 2X? ...lol...

What else???

ALL OF YOU GIVE ME 150$ EACH THEN NEXT YEAR YOU WILL GET 10 STYLES FOR YOUR SYNTHS FROM ME.

No, you are wrong, 300 new sounds and styles is an OS update...you just load them in USER...
...lollllzzzzzzz...

Please dont get there...with all due respect i dont think you know anything about Korg and
their updates and fixing of bugs...i think James warned you about it...lol.

Tell me of one that charged??? You know whats an update or an upgrade??? Take a look at
OS 1.5 for KORG PA series, which brought the Guitar Mode and then take a look at OS 2.0
which brought the DNC...then you'll figure it out...did anyone pay for it??? And it was an upgrade
same as handing you a new free synth not an upgrade of 300 styles and sounds
(the same ones but rebalanced)...

Ok, enough laughing...lets be real and nice.

Nedim,

it took you 6 posts to say what you easily could do in one.
Are you trying to become No.1 at The Top Of The Posts list?

GJ

just the same as you do about ketron, do you still have the shirt

I know enough not to buy one again.

[This message has been edited by mc (edited 10-31-2009).]

As I remember Ketron did the same thing with the SD1, new sounds, new styles and revoicing, look it up.

Yeah, and OS4 was the last one for SD1 ....

Revoicing sounds is a far cry from what KORG did. They they rebuilt the entire sound engine and expanded it from 5 OSC's to 16 and more.....

You won't find an arranger made by anyone else as deep as a KORG. They are the closest you can get to Workstations with Arrangers built in.

Methinks Korg upgraded their sound engine to what it was supposed to have been at launch.

Nothing wrong with that, and they also should be commended for the upgrades being free...but, what choice did they have , when the initial instrument did not compete very well with Yamaha's SA and Mega Voice technology?

Not everyone wants a lot of depth in sound editing on an arranger...a workstation/synth, yes, but arrangers are primarily for home users and amateur players.

That's why they have easy play features, like single finger chords, and Karaoke style midi players...sure, they are used by some pros, but their main purpose is for the amateur.

Having said that, Korgs are for the amateur/home players (and pros), who like like to delve a little further into the sound engine, and they serve that purpose very well, although it appears to be a niche market.

Elaborate sound editing (as opposed to basic filter and amp ADSR which is on Yamaha and, I believe Roland) on an arranger is not for everyone, but it is nice to see at least one manufacturer making instruments that have this feature for those users that need/want it.

I'm not knocking korg as if it is a bad arranger, but for my personal uses I find ketron suits my work better than korg. I find that ketron styles and sounds just sound a whole lot better. Even with with some problems that audya may or may not have at this moment. I would still take the audya over the pa2x anyday. just my opinion like it or not.


[This message has been edited by mc (edited 10-31-2009).]

Irishacts,

I think I will go with you , you appear to be the expert here I can feel it in my water, what do you think of the Audya compared to the PA2x, don't hold back on the crap if you don't, want lets have it both barrels

i heard that OS4, will probably be the last OS upgrade for AUDYA,

any updates therafter, will be bug fixes only....

Personally, I think that revoicing an arranger's ROM tones is merely an acknowledgment that they simply didn't get it right the first time.

All I'm hearing about OS 1.4 (whoops! meant to say OS 4.0 ) is that it adds a few more audio chords (but zero details - didn't even get ANY details about OS3 either) but STILL doesn't allow the audio part to exist without MIDI guitar substitutions, so it STILL doesn't live up to its' initial published specs... It revoiced some of the tones, adds a few more styles and FINALLY you get some sort of rudimentary style editing.

And you are comparing this to Korg's complete redesign of the synth engine, Guitar Mode and adding the equivalent of SA capabilities?

'Lowered Expectations' seems the mantra for Ketron.

It's all well and good to claim that ANYTHING added to an arranger should have been something added right from the start, but Korg and Roland added very powerful features to an arranger that ALREADY worked well. They weren't bugfix upgrades (even though some were squashed at the same time) but were the equivalent of what Yamaha do, without the onerous task of selling your current arranger and buying a new one

You want new features on a Yamaha, you HAVE to buy another Yamaha. You want them on a Korg or Roland, you wait and see what they are going to give you for free. You want new features on a Ketron, you have to wait until the features it is SUPPOSED to ship with get added first...

No doubt Ian will chime in here with how successful Yamaha are in this market. Which only proves that stiffing your customers IS the way to make lots of money. Greed is good! Yamaha could have easily added SA2 to the T2 or the new Guitar NTT's in an upgrade. Hands up everyone that ENJOYED selling their T2 and paying a LOT more for the T3, knowing that Yamaha COULD have added SA2 and the new NTT's for free?

I'm pretty sure I WON'T be moving to Yamaha in the distant future simply for this one thing. If Roland had followed Yamaha's 'rape your customers' policy, I doubt I would be staying with them, either. But my G70 does a LOT more than when I bought it, and most of the things that got added weren't things it needed to work right OOTB, but entirely new capabilities. Roland saved me a fortune. Kudos to THEM...

Of course, this is more personal opinion (aren't they all personal opinions?) and from another angle but with the introduction of the Tyros2, and the T3 in the wings, Korg needed to seriously upgrade their product, as did Roland, and the only way to do so was try and add content to the existing instruments, because, and this is probably due to poor sales, they couldn't very well afford to make new keyboards.

Korg did this much more successfully than Roland, but this was probably due more to the limitations of the G70, as opposed to the PA's more workable architecture....or maybe it was financial? G70's weren't exactly leaping off the shelves.

Meanwhile we wait for Roland to bring out another TOTL arranger, so the G70/E80 people can have an upgrade.

Yamaha continues to make and sell keyboards...seems like all Roland is selling, for now, is anticipation.

Of course, there's always VIMA.

Audya people have it even worse...they are getting a product that is a heartbreaker...it sounds incredibly good, but it is also incredibly buggy and lacking important features...the owners hope that the OS upgrades will continue long enough to make it completely finished, before the company gives up.

Remember, Diki...you can't rape the willing.

I don't think Ian is right - I know he's right

Regards

From what we have heard, there seems to have been massive disturbance in Roland's arranger line from a failed attempt to move production and development to China from Italy. Things like this have more to do with production interruption than simple product demand. Few have even SEEN a G70/E80/E60/E50 in a store near them. Personally, I blame Roland's marketing and production practices more than the product itself.

We both know full well that this is complete speculation on your part...you don't know if anything could have been added to the Tyros2....and that's okay...you're not young enough to know everything.

Only the engineers/designers know those answers, but certainly not you, my friend...but you are free to guess all you want.

Roland has done all they can with the G70 and it's smaller kin (including the GW-8 and McPrelude and they have nothing substantially new in the works...nothing on their synths and workstations that will eventually make it to an arranger...or maybe you know something the rest of us do not?

So, perhaps you were wise to buy another G70, as the future for TOTL arrangers, at least in Roland's camp, looks very dim.

I sure hope I'm proven wrong.

No doubt this is true, my friend, but they also shot themselves in the foot by making the arranger so heavy.

The biggest complaint about the G70, was it's lack of easy portability...portable arrangers aren't supposed to weigh that much, and even though the instrument is/was a quality piece, and sounded terrific, not a lot of solo performers wanted to have to move it around. I got this info from the salespeople, as well as arranger players who were at my clinics.

I'm not putting down the G-70...I'm only stating a well known fact, and we both know a few people on SZ that stopped using it because of the weight...you are the exception. You want what it does so much, that you're willing to put up with the inconvenience, but it seems, not everyone will do that, especially if there are lighter products available.

We all lugged around B-3's, CP-70's and Rhodes pianos, because there was nothing that could sound like them...that's not the case today...you can get a Nord to do all three that is close enough for even the most discerning player

The ones that seem to keep their G-70 are the ones who aren't gigging, but use it at home, or in a studio.

I have a good friend who sold one because of the weight...it was the one I tried here, as he had left it with me for a few weeks...he bought an S900, for cryin' out loud.

Another friend has a PSR-9000 Pro, that's also heavy...nearly as much as the G-70, and he just bought an S910 for gigging, and the 9K pro will stay at home.

No, the lighter instruments may not have the key feel of the G-70, nor it's piano sound, but they are close enough for those unwilling to be carrying a heavy instrument on their solo gigs.

I really do hope Roland makes a new G-series, and I hope it is far lighter than the old one, but still retains all that is/was good about it...new products, especially great ones, make the other guys get better, and we all benefit.

Confusion:::



Clearing things out:::




I bet you on anything i know about Ketron a lot more then you think i do...

Without even the price taken into consideration it is embarassing and
hurtfull to Ketron to even try to compare.

Hey guys give Ketron a break !!.

I think that they will be the first one confess that they release the Audya too soon.
My feeling is that now they are trying very hard to fix the shortcomings on the keyboard, that for what I can see are related to software.
At the end I think that Ketron will have a nice keyboard, with a set of new features, that will challenge the others vendors to do better.
On the topic of weight of the arrangers most of the people that complaint, are "giging" musicians and I understand why. For home, church users (that I think are the majority) like me, I say give me a nice keyboard, with good sounds, good styles and nice interface. If weight 40 pounds, I really don't care.

How is ketron support lately? for a gigging musician this is of the utmost importance parts, service, especially turnaround time being without the KB?

[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 10-31-2009).]

When the Audya first came out, I don’t think any one would argue that it did not sound good.
I have to reiterate the very bad reviews that the G 70 had regarding the sounds when it first came out. People said it was absolutely terrible and unusable.
Now, with OS 4 (if it is free), they are doing what Yamaha did to move from the T2 to the T3.
“* Over 300 NEW voices/sounds and Programs
* Revoiced/Modified current ROM voices.”

That was what Yamaha did to move from the T2 to the T3 and you had to buy another keyboard for that to happen.


Remember you could have edited styles on the Audya when it first came out. Now they are adding the ability to create styles on the Audya.


Here is the irony of styles on the Audya.
OOTB the styles on the Audya sounds great. This is what arranger players say they want on an arranger. They do not want to have to create styles; they just want to take it out of the box and play and sound good. The Audya offered that.

It did not have style creation. But, those same people said that the Audya was incomplete because it did not have style creation (a feature they say they are incapable of using).

The style creation in OS 4 allows you to do it on the Audya it self. On OS 3 it allowed you to do it with a computer software.

An OS upgrade is not a work in progress.
We are all )including me) speculating as to what this upgrade would be.
For example, the 300 new sounds could be included in the ROM set.

Who knows, Ketron could be reworking the OS from the ground up so it could be like changing from windows 98 to windows XP.

However, the real issue is stability. Are there any serious bugs.
And of course we all know what are bugs right? A bug is not when the keyboard does not work as we think it should work. But a bug is when the keyboard repeatedly does not work the way it was intended to work.

Nedim,

Perhaps that's why Irishacts didn't get back on this one , no point in stating the obvious Doh!

He knows we shouldnt waste time and ink comparing the 2...not worth it.

As of now as it is and as it is able to do i dont think it will challenge any keyboard at all.
And me knowing some stuff, i dont think this keyboard is really able of PUSHING LIMITS with
upgrades, for gods sake, its not even 64MB of RAM but its around 48MB. How the hell would
that challenge a 256MB PA2X or a whooping 1GB Tyros 2/3? On the other hand, i am 100%
sure, knowing how Ketron's system works it will NEVER EVER have the ability to EDIT SOUNDS
as you do on a 800$ KORG PA50. Thats a fact we have to live with. Also, it will NEVER EVER
have the EFFECTS of a 800$ KORG PA50...wwayyyyyyy behind...lets be real.
Please dont call this an opinion, this is a fact that MOST of us know and it cant be debated.

[This message has been edited by Nedim (edited 11-01-2009).]

Nedim,

Lets get this right is Machetero talking complete tosh about the Audya, Nedim I can't imagine you saying what you have just said if you didn't know what you were talking about, from what I see now - Audya to PA2x you are right, but could Ketters turn this one around, on past performance SD1 and SD1+ I doubt it. The SD1 was a nightmare to get around DOS 1.02 was better, but folks bought the dam things!
Why do we get talked into buying the stuff.
When Ketters designed the SD1 the floppy disk was on it's death bed. They must have lots of old as-been engineers working for them.

[This message has been edited by Tony Hughes (edited 11-01-2009).]

Yeah, because the macine played so lively and well "as is" without do any much more than
choose the style and sounds and push the start button.
I've said it before and have no problem to repeat it, Ketron manage to make an arranger
that sounds like it's the very same band performing during the night, the others I know
about don't do that without do a lot of "homework" before jump into any gig.
Switch from one style to another with Ketron, do the same with most others and you'll
notice what I mean.

Cheers
GJ

I know EXACTLY what i am talking about to the last detail but the funny thing is people think
i am ridiculous when i compare Audya to PA50, they think i really know nothing...lol.

But the devellopers have to satisfy both types of crowd, the ones that dont know nothing and
the ones that actuall do something with the OS on the machine...am i wrong?

You really can not compare Korg PA2x with any other arranger. Not the T3 not the G70. The extensive sound editing and effects on the Korg puts it in a class by it self.

Perhaps the Audya was to compete with the T3.
May be they were targeting the T3 market that wants something that sounds good OOTB, limited or no editing and cost a lot.
And that would have been fine except that Ketron has already developed a much more mature musical market. The people who like Ketron also like Korg. And they expect a lot of editing, programmability and space for user content. If you notice, the ones who are giving Ketron the hardest time about the Audya are the ones who have a PA2x and are concerned with none arranger features.

If you put the Audya in the hands of someone who is on the level of a T3 they would like the Audya for its features. They may not like the OS, but feature wise, they would be content.

In a way I think you're wrong, because "the ones who knows nothing" as you say, are not
the ones who buy upper end arrangers, and the developers satisfye the most by the line
of models, both in price level and number of choices during playing and buttonpushing.
The ones who know how to do something with the OS in the machine, are the engineers, not
the end users.
Users use the OS to gain what needed, but then again, some OS are worse than others to
reach what you want to do, if OS are buildt to do it in first place.

Myself, I was more into the buttonpushing years ago when gigging, and Technics sure was a
dream to work at. It's a mystery to me that noone "steal" the userfriendly OS and develope
it further.
Nowadays, I'm more comfortable to find a style and just play without have to act like an
dataguru before play anything at all. I'm not an pianist (not even any good player, that's
why I'm using arrangerkeyboard. The styles are my orchestra.

Cheers
GJ

Sounds wise they are close, but I'd have to give it to the Pa2X for having the clear edge because of DNC / RX Technology. It just sounds more real than the Audya. Ketron seem to have recycled a lot of PCM data which is partly why it doesn't sound so new and fresh.

Sound wise, the Audya sounds really great. You can't really criticise the factory sounds at all, they all sound great to be honest. They clearly recycled a lot of PCM data, but hey, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Comparing the sounds to the Pa2X.... it's not really fair because the Pa2X has DNC / RX Technology which allows it to sound very realistic with no effort on your behalf other than to just play the sounds. DNC is also not sample based like Mega Voices are on the Tyros. So it can use it's technology on any sound which is the clear winner if you ask me.

From a programming point of view.... NOTHING comes close to a KORG and there is nobody here that will disagree with me on that one because it's not an opinion, it's a fact. The sound engine is as deep as the top of the line KORG Workstations. If fact a single sound is a merger of Prog and Combi mode all in one. So in certain ways it even exceeds KORG's top workstations in a different way.

For styles, I think Ketron have the edge over everyone, not just KORG. Their style programmers just know how to write good foot tapping beats, so it's really a personal choice here for which you will perfer. From a programming point of view the Audya hasn't had the means to allow you to make your own styles and so I'm not really in a position to compare it to the Pa2X which has had a full style edit mode since day one.

Which is a major beef I have with the Audya. KETRON are clearly a company in serious trouble financially and this keyboard was pushed kicking and screaming out the door with entire systems missing and lots and lots of bugs. Even at this late stage it's still missing many basic functions the competition release a keyboard with, and the OS stability and hardware reliability is still very questionable. On top of that, this is a premium price keyboard.

I'm an OASYS user with is another premium price keyboard and if KORG had done what KETRON just did with the Audya, KORG Forums would be still on fire now from the war that would have took place. There are some things that are just not acceptable and KETRON using it's customers as beta testers and share holders is nothing short of embarrassing. They have no shame though.

All that said, if KETRON can keep going and somehow hold out, they will eventually finish the Audya and it should be a great keyboard by that time. I think though that they will drop it very quickly at that point because the only way for them to make a profit at this point is to finish it, take what they did and put it into another keyboard that costs less.

My 2 cents.

James



[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 11-01-2009).]

True, but the percentage of arranger players who want that much editing depth, is small, or Yamaha and Roland would have taken it up as well...they both have powerful workstations and synths from which they could "borrow".

Korg is basically going it alone in this area, and perhaps that's a good thing, as it helps them stand out a little from the others, and of course, snag the few (or perhaps, more than a few) users that are interested in, or must have, these features.

Choice is good.

Not at all... it's not just about what YOU can do with it, it's also about what the programmers working for KORG did with the sound engine to shape the sounds YOU are going to play.

For example, Yamaha have Mega Voices which is not a technology, it's just marketing hype for layered multisamples which are triggered off. The down side to this is the only sounds that can be Mega Voices are the ones Yamaha give you. The technology (Marketing Hype) is not transferable to all the other sounds because everything is based on the multisamples being there first.

Where on the other hand KORG's RX / DNC technology is an actual technology that applies to “””every sound””””. So out of the box, even if you do not program your own sounds, you are automatically using RX and DNC because the programmers at KORG have already done the work for you.

The Sound Engine in a KORG also allows KORG's sound designers to make sounds that are simply not possible to do on ANY other arranger. All this comes in the box ready to play by you with Zero programming.

People really need to open their eyes. Super advances sounds engines are not just tools for you to program. They already come full of content programmed by the experts and produce sounds that the competition can never do unless they too include a super deep sound engine.

Regards
James

Again, it's all well and good to have the accessibility to the sound engine, but, also again, very few people need or want that much editing.

Most arranger players, including the pros, are more than happy with basic tone editing and a simple ADSR...they might want to change a sound a tad, but since TOTL arrangers already come with superb sounds, out of the box, it becomes less necessary...remember, I'm talking arrangers here, not synth-workstations .

DNC is very nice, but it is far from sounding as good as SA1, or SA2...of course, these are my preferences (and why I use a Yamaha) you are a Korg user and are happy with the Korg sound so you choose (and promote) that sound...it's has very nice characteristics, but I can't say I'd want to hear it coming out of my speakers.

I'm more likely to lean toward Roland for alternate/complimentary sounds to my Yamaha...even though the former do not have DNC technology, they are warm and interesting.

James, you are a sound developer...extensive editing appeals to you...most workstation/arranger players use factory sounds, or buy patches....they might tweak a sound here and there.

The DX-7 was popular not for it's nightmarish interface, but for it's sound(s), and you could buy all you wanted...in fact, there were DX patch clubs that sprang up all around the place to cater to users.

I used to deal directly with a guy named Bo Tomlyn, from the USA to get patches for my Yamaha DX-5, and also for my clients.

I was too busy gigging and recording to spend time learning how to program the DX-5...I'm sure, many synth players today, feel much the same way.

Of course, that's a good thing for sound programmers like yourself.

Roland needs something to give them an edge again...like they had back in the day of the E-series...methinks they haven't got the resources right now to develop something like DNC and/or SA (and Mega).

A shame, because, I'd hate to see them out of the picture...as you know, competition is good for us all, and when/if Yamaha absorb or buy out Korg , that will leave us with very few choices.

BTW...watch out for Casio...you heard it here first.

[This message has been edited by ianmcnll (edited 11-01-2009).]

Irishacts, I think that was an honest review. Thank you,

Ultimately, there no best keyboard, only the way the user interprets it and how the keyboard fits their playing style. Some users are very advanced in editing sounds and styles and some just play it right out of the box. There is no wrong or right way to use an arranger. Diki loves his Roland, Ian loves his Yamaha, Those keyboards fit there needs, Gary still uses the psr3000 and does wonders with it. Don is starting to make the Audya his own and he did great with the SD5. I have a friend that can’t part with his Roland VA76. Many can argue whether the Audya was released too soon but it is here now and as the consumer there is always the option not to buy one. I can understand one frustration if they currently owns one and are having a hard time with it. But what I can’t understand why so many want to see Ketron fail, which will only hurt the follow synthzone members who own Ketron products. Also it seems that one individual has a personal vendetta against Ketron but prior to the audya release there were nothing but praises and complements.

I hope Ketron succeeds as I do Roland, its shame a company like Roland who were once pioneers in arrangers, seem not to care about arranger line anymore. I think the more arranger companies out there, it will only work out better for the customers.

MC the Yamaha owner.

300 new sounds, new styles, etc, is great and all

but we are forgetting one VERY IMPORTANT shortcoming on the AUDYA, which Nedim pointed out

the AUDYA has less than 64MB ram

UNLESS AUDYA ups this, makes this expandable to 2 GIG (preferably) it will have a HARD time keeping up with the "others"

wouldn't it be great to be able to load up more than 3 or 4 super voices without filling up the ram?

this RAM expansion MUST be addressed,
let US, the users, choose to install LOTS more
if you want 1GIG you buy it and ibstall
if you want 2GIG, and spend the extra $42 then you have the option....

Hi ianmcnll.

Bear with me for a moment and I will try explain this a different way that might be clearer.

Remember the sound engine is what drives the entire sound a keyboard produces regardless of make and model.

Now forget accessibility for you the end user for a moment. Even if KORG hid away all these advanced features from the end user and only used them themselves for making the factory sounds, the sound engine is infinitely more advanced than the competition so these guys can make it produce sounds no other keyboard can.

Why... because KETRON and every other arranger keyboard simply dosen't have a sound engine that can do that, so regardless of what level the sound designer is at. They simply don't have the tools to do what a KORG sound designer has access to.

So even if you will never use the sound engine to make your own sounds, the mere fact that the sound designers working for KORG had a sound engine that deep to work with in the first place means the factory presents will contain some pretty excising stuff that is simply impossible for another make of arranger keyboard to produce.

In short, regardless if you use the sound engine or not to make your own sounds, it's responsible for everything the keyboard produces and because it's so advanced, it can do things no other arranger can and that's what the KORG programmers will give you in the form of factory presets.

So even if you don't use it yourself, KORG did to produce the factory sounds.

Regards
James

James, I do understand where you are coming from....and yes, Korg does have some fantastic sounds because of their sound engine.

It's not just the accessibility, but what is produced from a powerful synth engine.

I got all that.

I'm familiar with synths...I don't think I'm quite a newbie...I buy, restore, and sell vintage synths for a hobby....but, I can always learn a thing or three...as I always say, "I'm not young enough to know everything."

Again, it still boils down the the overall sound or character of the synth engine, much as it used to be in the days of the Prophet-5, Jupiter 8, and CS-80...tone generators have their own overall character.

I also have owned several Korgs...DW-8000, 01W ProX, two M1's, an MS-20, Wavestation EX...ahhh, you get the idea.

I haven't played a recent Korg arranger, but I have played plenty of Trinity, Triton, and X50, so I "get" the gist of the Korg sound...it's not one I'm totally keen on for arranger play, and I prefer Yamaha and Roland...no big deal, just my ears like those sounds.

But, as I said earlier, most, if not the majority, of arranger players are comfortable with simple sound editing...Korg addresses those that want more, and yes, their arrangers do have extraordinary capabilities.

Quite frankly, even with all that depth in programming available, they don't sound any better than Yamaha or Roland...just different, if that makes any sense.

But having lots and lots of memory for additional sounds is not important for most arranger users.

Ask T3 or T2 users if they take advantage of the additional memory for additional sounds. Ask G70 users if they do the same.

It is only the Korg users who may use and create user sounds. But the Korg market is really different from the T3 or G70 user.

I'm curious...you seem quite enthusiastic about Korg...do you use a Korg arranger, as well as your GEM...if not, why not?

If so, why do you use it?

Again, just curious.

No I don’t use a Korg. Don’t like touch screens.
I talk about Korg arrangers because they are the closest thing to the Genesys in terms of concept.
They integrate workstation and arrangers.

I don't like touch screens either...I'm sure they serve most people quite well, but I don't like the tactile response(or lack of it)

So the Genesys has extensive synth engine editing capabilities?

I understand it is a pro level arranger.

How much poly does it have?

There is another thing to it, i know by heart few of Korgs machines, Triton line, PA line, M3, the HI based line
of synths...now, the Engine on the PA2X/800 as James said it exceeds even the engine on the M3 itself,
forget about the older models but even the M3 is in trouble. M3 has 2 oscilators to create a sound, there is
sub oscilators too, as lower and whatever but i am talking about REAL oscilators cuz PA has lower too which
will then make 36 Osc...on the other hand, the DNC on the PA kills most of the sounds on the M3, there is no
Guitar sound on the M3 that can come close to the Guitars on the PA...and other stuff too...

The thing that I tend to feel about the issue (arrangers vs. WS's) is that neither profits from trying too hard to be the other...

When I use an arranger, I don't WANT the flexibility and power of a full WS. Yes, I want enough power to tweak what it comes with to better suit my taste, but if I want to create utterly new sounds, if I want the ultimate sampler, if I want to create studio ready masterpieces, I think the WS and the VSTi setup are the correct tool for the job.

In all fairness, even with Korg's PA2X, we are really comparing its' capabilities to a decade old WS. It really doesn't have a fraction of the power or capabilities of the M3, let alone the Oasys. It's based on a Triton, for Pete's sake, and a Classic, at that (no tubes in the PA!). No Karma, no arpeggiators, and REALLY convoluted audio loop playback...

I tend to want to use arrangers strictly for live playing, or in the studio as a scratch pad for songwriting, or for whatever sounds are ALREADY standout. If I need more than that for a recording, I've got the Triton, K2500 and a bunch of VSTi's. But there's no way in hell I'd want any of their complexity and flexibility on stage...

We simply seem to be divided into two camps. One wants the arranger to be a FULL WS as well as an arranger, and one that wants the arranger to focus on JUST that... And, I'm sorry, but it appears that the WS hybrid crowd is by FAR in the minority. Case in point appears to be the Audya, which appears to concentrate ENTIRELY on being an arranger and nothing else. Which, if it does that ONE task better than anything else, still makes it a great (albeit expensive) arranger. So WHAT if it only has 48MB of sample RAM? Probably 99% of arranger users don't use a sampler live. The whole POINT of the arranger is that everything you want is already in ROM, no load times (can't wait 30 seconds in a fast paced show while that custom crumhorn sample loads! ). For most classic music (jazz, rock, oldies, acoustic music, etc.) most of the TOTL arrangers already have GREAT samples, some of them have pianos that rival TOTL VSTi's, for heaven's sake! All adding a sampler to the mix does is rack the price up for something nobody uses live (OK, almost nobody! )...

Arranger users and players are getting fewer and fewer. To be honest, the people that are most into the PA2X for its' WS abilities would be better served trying to get more arranger-like functions added to the M3 (a combination of Karma and styles would ROCK!), which already blows away the PA2X for the functions they feel most important. But while the PA2X works SO hard at trying to be a WS, its' paltry choice of three fills for a four Variation arranger show that it has forgotten about what arranger buyers bought it for in the first place. Yes, DNC is great, and once Korg develop a set of samples that leverage it to its' best (like Yamaha have with SA2) it will finally open many eyes, but first and foremost, the styles' divisions have to connect well.

Three fills is so EIGHTIES...!

Soundwise, I have no problem gigging live with my G70. I haven't found anything yet (and I do a HUGE range of material on it, from jazz to contemporary top 40 to reggae to country) that I couldn't get 'close enough for live'. The things that I feel could be improved aren't detail editing, but things that would make live playing more powerful. Like my Chord Sequencer, or linked SMF and arranger sections, seamless changing from arranger Modes, things like that.

If I need to modulate the speed of an LFO from how many notes I am currently playing, or use one LFO to modulate the waveform of another, I've got a Kurzweil for that But you won't see it onstage with me...

I simply think that we should let the Audya be ab ARRANGER. Bitching at it because it isn't a WS, while there are still things it needs to do to be a better arranger (like not crash!), and especially in light of Ketron NEVER going down the WS hybrid root just seems so pointless.

Well with that all said ....
At this time the Yamaha S910 is the best MOTL arranger on the market and the Eagles Won Big Time against the Giants today!!

Hi Diki.



Basically you don't know what you want.

You want flexibility, but not too much



No..... I was answering the question directly about Audya VS Pa2X and I only used workstations as a point of reference to demonstrate just how much more advanced the Pa2X is.

Anything Nedim said was just an extension of that just to drive the point home of just how advanced the Pa2X is. There's also no rule saying we can't talk of workstations in order to help make a point.



No ...Go back and read my last post because I've already explained all this and how this benefits even people who have no intentions of ever programming so much as a single sound.

You have missed the point on that one.



There's no excuse, 48 MB is pathetic for countless reasons with the main one being that it's a premium priced keyboard. Premium should mean premium features.



Arrangers will have no problem surviving and it's clear to see that people like KORG have already started to make sure that's the case. The lines between their arrangers and workstations is very blur right now and with the resources Yamaha have you can bet that when they feel the need, they can quickly adapt too.

So I wouldn't be too worried about arrangers.



Well that's because your using mainly bread and butter sounds and you don't have any major need for complex sounds. Same goes for the likes of Yamaha and the Tyros series. Rather than developing a new technology like KORG's DNC, they will just keep on flogging their AWM2 engine to death because every time they add a few more Mega Voices they can use that as a huge selling point. Pisses me off actually when that's the sort of thing should come on a CD-ROM for the sampler.



And your against having features like that in your arranger ? I don't see the point to your logic at all.



No... it's the arranger that's still missing in this arranger.

Regards
James

Just as a general comment I'd like to throw out there to everyone.

It's not contest of mine is better than yours, and there is no such thing as a universally better keyboard regardless of how advanced it is.

We are all musicians here so I don't have to explain that music is from the heart to you guys, so just remember.... Technical specs are fine and all that but, the instrument you choose is supposed to be the best one that allows you to express what's inside you. That's the most important factor. Technical specifically are no means to measure how good that keyboard will be at allowing you to express yourself.

We have all different needs guys so the best advice I can give anyone is go with your heart after you do your homework on what's available. Test the hell out of them all too.

The only thing that matters is what makes you happy most and what allows you to express your music as best as YOU can.

Regards
James.

What? Now you tell me this after I've just sold all my Yamahas and bought one of them there Korg sympathizers.

Some charismatic Korgian leader you turned out to be.

Beware the Casio.

And be careful, I think FransN is on your side.

It's part of an old Jedi mind trick KORG thought me. Tell them they don't need it and they will want it.

PS... Regarding my comment about a universally better keyboard. I was referring to that from the end users point of view. There's no such thing as a keyboard that suites everyone.

But those KORG's are bloody fantastic and more advanced than every other arrange. Everyone should buy one.

so Diki,
you will be happy to be able to load JUST 2 super-solo sounds and have your RAM full?
and if you want to load another you MUST replace one of the existing sounds?

a $5,000 keyboard should come standard with AT LEAST 1GB Ram, and if not, it should BE EXPANDABLE



[This message has been edited by leezone (edited 11-01-2009).]

All I guess I was trying to point out was that, IF you are doing music that primarily revolves around convoluted synth programming, a synth is likely the best tool.

No offense, but I NEVER hear any of you guys bitch about the fact that the M3, or the Triton, or MoXS ISN'T an arranger as well... Somehow, what IT does, and its' focus is entirely OK, but the arranger sucks for not having all of their capabilities?

Oh, you'll say... WS users don't NEED arranger capabilities. They are focused on different musical genres, and their players on the whole, don't NEED or even want standard arranger functionality.

And that is my point... MOST arranger users don't need or want the advanced WS features, either. The product is focused on what it needs to be an easy to use gigging machine, or a simple accompaniment device for those with limited playing skills. Anything that confuses or distracts the arranger from that focus diminishes the product, just as any serious effort to make the WS an arranger is going to distract from it being the best WS it can be.

Personally, I'd rather have seen a dozen fills, four break/fills and six Variations as the basis for a new Korg arranger than a powerhouse sampler or detail voice editing (BTW, both Roland and Yamaha voice designers have access to FAR more voice programming capabilities than the user - as long as THEY can use them, they are still there, aren't they? It's not like the voice engine is as barebones as the arrangers controls make them seem).

Personally, I simply think that more variation in what the ARRANGER engine can do, as opposed to the voice engine, makes a bigger difference to how musical our performances are, IF you are actually using the arranger as an arranger. Maybe if you are trying to shoehorn a WS out of it, you might feel differently, but what is weird is that MOST of those crying out for 'more editing!' already HAVE very excellent WS's. When you have an Oasys, why do you NEED your PA2 to do the same thing..? Let it concentrate on doing what the Oasys CAN'T do...

But honestly, if you aren't constantly bitching on the WS forums that the WS isn't an arranger, you don't have much credibility to come to the arranger forum, and bitch that it isn't a full WS WS's have no problem with not being an arranger. And arrangers shouldn't have to defend themselves for not being a WS...

Yes Diki but SOUNDS EDITING is not WORKSTATION's job only or capability,
its is SYNTH's job to do so to which ARRANGERS belong too. I know something
about synths too, thats how i make my living so lets stop with the ARRANGER
does this and WORKSTATION does this...do you really know what defines an
arranger and what defines a workstation???
Workstation=Synth+Sequencer (yeah i know, KARMA, ARP and all that)
Arranger=Synth+Styler (o yeah? what about songbook and pads?)
And again, they both need SoundEditing and FX processor.

Look at the bigger picture Diki.

If you DO NOT have any intentions of programming so much as a single sound you still benefit from having the more advanced sound engine because the sound designers at KORG would have created the factory sounds with it.

Everything the keyboard produces comes from the Sound Engine and if it's a super advanced one that has the likes of DNC and so on, then it will automatically sound bloody fantastic.

Regards
James

Its like saying...the ingredients dont matter, only how good the cake is what matters...
how good can it be if the ingredients suck??? In this case the Engine is one of them.

But that's the point I made, James... even though the USER may not have access to these more advanced voice editing capabilities, the factory programmer for Yamaha or Roland DOES...

And I think that you both put too much emphasis on the 'Synth' aspect of the arranger. In all fairness, arrangers in the most part have been primarily ROMplers rather than full on synths. Korg IS the only game in this area, and kudos to them for it, but I hardly think it's fair to criticize the rest for not being this niche product, any more than it's fair to criticize the Korg for not having integrated audio loops, or Mega voices, or a full on CX-3 Hammond sim...

By the time you put EVERYTHING you could possibly want in an arranger, none of us could afford it!

WS's are designed for what the MAJORITY of users want in it, which is why you'll probably never see a full on arranger engine in there. And arrangers are designed for what the MAJORITY of arrangers users want in it, which is why it is rare to see full on WS capabilities, either.

BOTH of you are sound designers and style creators first and foremost, rather than entertainers or gigging pros, from what I gather. That makes you VERY different from the majority of arranger users. Expecting the arranger industry to follow your needs rather than that of the majority is an exercise in futility... Trust me on this one! There's PLENTY that I'd like to see in an arranger (Chord Sequencer, full MIDI codes to name just a few!) that seems to get basically a yawn from most here...

Join the club...

Yes, and perhaps the biggest yawn is coming from Roland...they not only had no interest in giving you the Chord Sequencer and full MIDI codes....they stopped making arrangers altogether...well, almost if you count the GW-8 and McPrelude.

I wonder if Fran bought a second G70? I think Donny said he bought an E-80.

Should look at a few more for spare parts down the road.

I had a Roland Pro-E pass through here with the Super Card...mint...it had the chord sequencer, it was called Arranger Loop, if I recall correctly.

Could you midi your G70 into a Pro-E somehow, and utilize the chord sequencer?

Just curious.

BTW, Diki...I would have kept the Pro-E, as I love that sound the arrangers from that era made....warm and smooth, and the styles weren't too bad at all; some were still very usable, but the instrument would not read ON BASS chords, and it would not recognize chords like C7b9.

It wasn't especially generous with keys either...37, I believe, made more with left hand only in mind, of course.

But for those rather essential (for me) features it lacked, I would have kept it...even had a nice case and pedal.

You have been really off your game the last few days Diki and I'm finding I have to repeat everything to you.

There is “““NO””” back-door access to the engine that Roland and Yamaha sound designers have that the end user can't access. What you are presented with to edit is all you and the sound designers have to work with.

Regards
James.

Irishacts,

I thought Diki liked the PA2x, have I missed something, I know he don't like the Audya, or do he??? Hey, this thread is 3 page going on 17 all about 3 Kbs.

I have been told by the UK Ketron site that OS4 will blow my sockets off, we will wait and see, what to you think AJ, do you wear socks.

Irishacts do you feel on this occasion you are having a job getting through, I sense so!

[This message has been edited by Tony Hughes (edited 11-03-2009).]

I think Diki has what he want's already (the G70) and that's about as far as he's going to go for a long time.



No kidding
I think if I have to repeat myself again I'll just slash my wrists.

Cheers
James

[This message has been edited by Irishacts (edited 11-03-2009).]

James,

if you are going to slash your wrists do it in true Irish style not across but down the length. I binned my G70 2 years back, did I miss something.

Cheers.

Sorry to correct you James, but perhaps you are not that familiar with Roland's (or unable to admit when you are wrong )....

There are MANY patches in the G70 and on SRX cards (that run on the G70 engine) with FAR more going on in the voice parameters than the simple ADR envelopes that the front end allows you access too. Swells, cross-switches, cross fading between oscillators, inverted envelopes, monophonic behavior, retriggering envelopes, the list goes on and on.

What the USER gets at the front end is very simple, just enough to fine tune and perhaps reshape the sound a LITTLE. But, back at the factory, some programmer put all the complex behavior in at the FULL voice engine, and wrote it to ROM. If the G70's engine could not do these things, the patch could not do these things. And, I can assure you they DO...

After all, the G70's sound engine is based on the Fantom. That's a LOT of programming power. It's just that Roland, like most other arranger makers, keep what the USER has access to to more basic editing, thinking (probably rightly) that that is sufficient power without intimidating the user for what he is likely to need. Roland have a pretty large selection of synth leads and pads, then I added an SRX board with a ton more, and for live, I haven't YET found anything I couldn't get 'close enough for live' out of the ROM patches with a little tweaking.

Sure, I want to create something utterly unique, I've got to perhaps go to the K2500 or the Triton or the VSTi's, but on the whole, when playing live, I am not expected to come up with something utterly unique. Cover music doesn't really need that, and I can't remember EVER seeing an original electronica band that used arrangers...

I am as interested in voice tweaking as anyone. I defy you to find a keyboard with a more powerful, more convoluted voice editing system than the K2500 (other than the K2600 ), and I know it pretty backwards and forwards. But somehow, I manage to perform live without that complexity, doing the kind of material I do. Sure, I'm not trying to do Jean Micheal Jarré, or Tomita, or Wendy Carlos or trance, but I can get close enough to any of those to fool the average listener with my presets.

There's about 400 synth pads and leads in the G70 ROM. There's another 200+ on the SRX-07 card (not counting its' 300 odd acoustic sounds). If you can't find what you need out of 600+ high quality synth patches (with ADR and basic LFO and filter offsets), it may be time to reconsider whether an arranger is the right keyboard for you. And get a Kurzweil!

I still don't get why you don't grok the concept that, if it's OK for the Oasys to NOT be an arranger, why isn't it OK for an arranger to NOT be an Oasys? As long as it does the task it is designed for...

Consider me the odd out when it comes to the PA800. Maybe I just got a "good one", even as the original launch. The DNC and all that was good, including additional styles, but I have to say the 800 is the very best board ever produced and it it serves me well (as with the audience too) about 500x per year and more in 2010. I cannot imagine ever playing a different instrument with all it offers - sounds, styles, TC, songbook and many other attributes Everything else pales in comparison - you just have to use your imagination to get the best from it.

Diki... I'm throwing in the towel because conversations with you seem very disconnected lately.

I seem to spend most of my time repeating myself to you or trying to say the exact same things different ways just so you understand, yet you don't or you ignore what I'm saying.

Cheers
James.

All i know off is that i did work for 2 companies (one of them 1 of the big 3) and never
at anytime, Us, as engineers had anything more then the Mortal user had acces to.
The only difference is that i have access to the internal ROM, i can add or delete but as
far editing goes, 110% is the same on any synth.

No offense, James, but I feel somewhat the same way...

We'll just have to agree to disagree on what we consider the focus of arranger designers should be. Fortunately, I already HAVE several WS's and synths, so when I need sounds more complex than my arranger has, I can still get them. But none of my WS's have any arranger functionality, so forgive me for wanting the manufacturer to concentrate first and foremost on ARRANGER operation and functionality.

There's no such thing as a free lunch... IF arranger manufacturers concentrated a LOT more on opening the sound engine to users, that would be LESS time they spent on making new arranger functions. I can only imagine the howls of protest over on the WS forums if WS development stagnated, while the parent company tried to shoehorn a full arranger engine into it (which few users want).

In a perfect world, there would be no 'either or', but sadly, I don't see how the arranger manufacturers, who are already tightening their belts and slowing down new product development, can develop what you want without it taking away from what the MAJORITY of arranger users want...

In the meantime, you have the PA2, which already does it, and if it comes at the price of arranger functionality (three fills only!), that's OK for you...

Others MIGHT see it differently...

And Nedim... did you work for the WS or sound development teams, or did you come on board at the arranger development team end?

The sample and patch development teams work primarily for the WS division, don't they? And I guarantee THEY have access to the full range of parameters that the WS users do. If an arranger uses a Fantom chip, the sound designers (that make the internal ROM) have access to FAR more than you or the user do.

If a sound has an inverted envelope on it, and you DON'T, it means that SOMEONE did, at some point or another, doesn't it?