Mmmmm...AJ and TWD are promoting the Audya on the forum...they are connected with Ketron, aren't they?

We have two music dealers who post here as well, and of course, zealots like yourself, who are blinded by the Audya's great drums and bass, yet refuse to admit the guitars aren't done to the same high standard.

I'm not the only one who thought the Audya's guitars were less than stellar, just as I'm not the only one connected in some way to a company or place of business that promotes and sells arrangers.

Ian

Ian,

it's not QUANTITY we are talking about
we are talking about QUALITY

you think the bass & drums are TOO LOUD in AUDYA? (i don't, but OK)


so all you do is lower 2 faders, and resave style,

in case you don't know,
LOWERING their volumes does not take away from the QUALITY of the sounds (drums and bass)

you still have STELLAR drums and bass that BLOW away YAMAHA'S

so enough excuses that they are too loud in AUDYA,

just lower them, done.

and for our sake here,
PLEASE go try out an AUDYA for yourself,

Yes, Yamaha's mega guitars sure do make a difference in adding realism, but part of that credit goes to the fact that they don't need to add another standard midi guitar to play the notes the former was unable to play.

They did it right at the beginning.

Now, with the newly added GTT mode, the voicing is based on a real guitar player's way of doing it. Audya needs two guitar players, each one playing a different instrument, to accomplish (sort of) the same thing.

Pretty lame, and quite likely done at the last minute, probably due to lack of resources to finish the job properly.

Ian

Not just too loud, Lee, they are just done to a much higher standard than the guitars, so they can't help but jump out at you.

Not everyone likes to hear mainly bass and drums...I don't...I like a more balanced sound, a nice mix, probably not suited to the dance crowd, but more to the listening audience.

Personally I don't think the Audya's great bass and drums compensate for the poorly implemented guitar track. You have a different opinion, and of course, you're welcome to it...it doesn't make mine any less valid...it just doesn't coincide with yours, that's all.

Ian

Ian,

I do not see or hear how a midi (computer based) guitar track from Yamaha could sonically sound better than a real audio track. To me, it doesn't make sense.

I would take the guitar tracks on my SD1plus over a Tyros 3 any day. I could not have possibly recorded all my original music with a Yamamah product and get the same authentic sound.

We'll agree to disagree.

I really enjoyed your music, and I respect your fine work, Dan...I think you are a true pro and a highly accomplished musician.

I agree that an audio guitar track might sound as realistic, or sometimes, more realistic than a standard midi guitar track, but we aren't just talking standard midi guitars; we need to acknowledge that Yamaha's mega voiced guitars are able to achieve a much higher degree of realism, and, the new GTT mode, takes them to another level.

Where the Audya's audio guitars fail, in my opinion, is that they can't play complex chords, without the addition of standard midi guitar notes...yes, the audio guitars sound very real, but the addition of lesser quality standard midi guitars takes away from the natural sound.

When they are able to recognize all guitar chords and voicings, solely with audio guitar tracks, then I will say they have reached an equivalent (but based on a different concept)level to Yamaha's success with mega voices.

Again, this is one opinion being different than the other, and, like you, I'm content to agree to disagree...I've made my point, as have you.

Ian

good gracious....how many times does one have to repeat the same thing over and over before it starts to sink in? or is it a case of selective hearing?

that list of chords way back in this thread was pretty exhaustive...go back and check. certain inversions on the audya do not have a live guitar because it is physically not possible for a guitarist to play that inversion (however other inversions will play). It doesn't matter how much money you throw at a recording studio if the guitarist can't strum a particular inversion then it cannot be recorded.

So there is a choice, 1) forget live guitars and use old fashioned midi guitars all the time, 2) pop in a chord inversion thats too high or too low, 3) just leave that particular chord inversion blank OR 4) you use a mix of midi and arpeggio guitars to make the transition flow on the very few inversions that do not have a live strumming guitar.

In the tiny ammount of inversions that are not playable (I think there were only three chords in the list) on only some styles the midi guitar will cut in but its an exception rather than a rule and in the year or so I have been playing and listening to the Audya it has never come up with myself or any of the pro players that use the Audya to earn a living from.

Despite what you said, in the MP3 that was posted a few days ago you can very clearly hear the complex chord progression and inversions. I know you said you can't hear the guitar, but quite honestly I wonder what might have happened to your hearing if that is the case?

can anyone else NOT hear the guitars in this:
http://www.ketronmusic.co.uk/media/chords.mp3

Just curious here, and no particular preference for either a Yamaha or a Ketron, but if an inversion is not physically possible on a guitar, then why, realism being the goal, would we need to play it on a keyboard? What piece of music would call for that particular inversion since no composer would write it? It would seem to me that the manufactured keyboard inversion is of no particular use anyway.

keyboard players tend not to worry about which inversions are playable on a guitar when they play the keyboard and normally stick in the same octave range for most chords as you probably know. Most don't worry about the composer either and just play what sounds right to them.

some keyboard players don't even keep in an instruments range on the right hand part so what hope do we have for inversions?

as mentioned before, the one thing that is better than having live guitar strumming on the Audya is a live guitarist sat next to you when you play the Audya. But the Audya provides a nice alternative in the absence of said guitarist.

Good gracious....how many times does one have to repeat the same thing over and over before it starts to sink in? Or is it a case of selective demo playing.

My concern was how the guitars handled inversions and complex chords on their own.

That's how they were first demo'd here, and several of us were able to hear (or distinguish) the midi guitar adding the notes the audio guitar could not play.

As I said earlier, sometimes a player wants to start out a tune with just the guitar part...it's done a lot in music, especially country and pop, but pretty well all genres have tunes that begin that way.

Your demos, while showcasing the bass and drums, which are good, and obviously the instrument's best feature, and main selling point, do nothing to allow the listener to hear the guitar parts on their own...you're even playing a melody over the top.

Now, you are either missing my point entirely, either by selective reading, or perhaps, you might want to hide the guitars because of their unnatural voicing...I don't know, and , at this point, I do not care.

If I was the only one who heard the badly done guitar parts, I'd say, perhaps my hearing is shot, or selective, or whatever....but, I wasn't the only one...there were several of us.

It's highly unlikely we all have the same hearing problems.

So, it's highly likely what we heard, was exactly what was posted.

Ian