Finally had a chance to transfer the files I made on day 1 with the 900 so ... be kind folks - I recorded these on the FIRST night with the 900, and TBH - I'm still not happy. I'm more comfy than that first day, but this has been one tough puppy to love ... as far as the vocal section goes, that is. Tell me what you think, but be kind - I recorded the demos at 10am while the kitchen help was setting up, floors being waxed and servers walking all over the dance floor .... not the best setup for concentration!
LOL

This was the identical trial with 2 different mics ... I think the #1 was the Shure Beta58, and #2 is the EV 767a.
I'll post one more sample of the Shure

Here's a better harmony trial

In headphones, it sounds like a lot of echo, but in the setting that I play - it gets eaten up, so the effects need to be exaggerated a bit. I think the overall sound is just ....muffled. It sounds like I have a sock over my mic. Any other singers buy this thing yet? I never had this much trouble getting an acceptable tone from a built in mic processor. It just sounds awful to me.

Time to get the Gold AT out of the closet...

... or maybe a midnight blue! The cheaper the mic .. the better it seems to sound!
Sigh .... I wanted this to be a slam dunk. I DO like the keyboard in all other respects, though.

Actually it sounds very good through my phones. I agree I like the shure better. The harmony parts could be a bit clearer. You will get there with a little tweaking.
DonM

Sounded okay to me, too. I think we all get used to a certain sound and with any new gear there's bound to be a period of adjustment as our ears acclimatise. Plus, we're all our own worst critics, anyway. It's highly likely, too, that the harmony unit in the Pa900 is going to be somewhat less than in the Pa3X. Price alone tells us that. Tweak on.

I see where you are coming from Dave. It sounds a bit muffled , with slight sibilance everywhere and all I can say is that it does not sound as good as my PA800, honestly. Don't know which corners have been cut here, oh and by the bye it is not a match with the PA3X. As I mentioned before the harmoniser on the PA900 is supposed to be the same as on the PA800.

Incidentally, all the factory PADS on the PA900 are the ones already there on the PA800. Seems to me that they have been doing a lot of repackaging in China really. That having been said the multisample list of the PA900 runs well over 830 samples( same as the PA3X) whereas the PA800 only sports approx. 600. Not sure though that the internal ROM sample memory holding all these samples is the same on the PA900 as on the PA3X.As a matter of fact I would be pleasantly surprised if it were.( To the best of my knowledge the internal ROM sample memory of my PA800 is a mere 128Mb.

The PA900 is stil not out here in Europe but will hit the stores starting next week or thereabouts..............

regards
John

definitly #2

It all sounds good to me... Too much reverb but you said it was necessary for the room. Maybe a PA 600 with a separate vocal effects unit would work for you?

Oh yeah, could you please post some examples with some styles too? I haven't found too many examples of the Korg PA 600/900 used with western music. Thanks!

I agree fully with Don Mason on this one.

Gary

Dave, I think you are beating yourself up a bit.

I thought the vocals sounds were great and the amount of echo was nice.
A vocaliser IMO is like the the wahwah pedal, we have to know when to use it and when not to use it, too much can destroy the overall preesentation.

Overall I was very pleased with sound, that piano sounds great.

Frank

Thanx for all the input - I'm posting the latest settings that I found to work "ok" in the mic section:

assign the dynamics processor to: Lead AND harmony
Set the Dyn to: -20 8.0:1 -55(gate)
EQ:I use the 60 hz low cut
Low: 806(-2)
Mid: 1.3 4khz(1)
Hi: 8.1(4)

These setting are "almost" acceptable with a Shure Beta 58 for my voice. It's so strange that the Sure gives me a clearer, more crisp sound than my EV 767 that I've use for years. In every other amp scenario I can compare, I prefer the EV. Weird.

I'll record a few style demos today ... stay tuned.

Here are a few tidbits with styles
Both recorded using the arranger chords as trigger for the voice

a few more
(hee hee .... forgot the "P" in Duprees)
The Duprees medley used manual LH bass and no arranger tracks ... just RH Rhodes, LH bass and drums.(I think I unmuted the 1-5 tracks for one chorus ... can't remember now)

Brian ... I did not fuss at all with levels. I used the internal recorder and hit "start"
I'm sure the vocal `unit is t fault - it's so sensitive and unstable so far - I'm so puzzled, but not giving up yet. I have a quiet, dinner music job tomorrow .... that will give me great input on the sound in a quieter setting.

Mentioned on another thread, but you might consider an external pre/compressor combo BEFORE going into the Korg...

Those inputs are unbalanced, according to the PA900 site.

The mic pre is most of the trouble - with a better signal, the harmonizer probably would sound better. I'm guessing that, like Yamaha, Korg is squashing the input signal to prevent untrained singers from damaging the speakers. I'm still working on a fix for this.

I just tried a PL84 condenser mic with a Rolls phantom power supply ... sounds a tad cleaner, more gain, but still ...... dunno .... more tests.

Did you try to pan the harmony voices little bit left and right from the center? Maybe 10-2 o'clock.
Also, some lower settings for how quickly the harmonizer reacts to the signal might make it less robotic.
Did you also try a little bit higher level for the harmony voices?
These exercixes are very useful for us waiting to see and touch a Pa900 live. Thank you for them.

Adimatis,
I honestly think I tried every little thing possible since I opened the box, and I'm still experimenting. I often place harmonies off center, and I ride the volume knob constantly to give a more human feel. I blend each song on the fly to the proper level that matches my lead and I try to use the harmony in a supportive and creative way. With all that said ... I have come to the conclusion that the built in mic section on the PA900 is simply not of a high enough quality for my needs, so I was forced to augment the setup with an outboard rig.

In 45+ years of entertaining, I have never, EVER had the "perfect" setup ... there's always a compromise somewhere. At this stage in my career, portability is huge, so I have made many sacrifices to accomplish the best setup for what exists today. I just may have it now.

Dave,
I don't sing at all so the harmonizer is a non-issue to me, but I am definitely interested in this PA-900 because from the demo's heard so far it appears to have a lot of beautiful sounds, maybe not even present in the flagship PA3-X.
Is this true? Having had both, can you comment on the differences in sounds and styles between the two kb? On the manual they could even have the same names, but do they sound the same or are there clear differences?
Thanks

Hi Dave. It Spalding . I can't really provide any helpfull comments on the frustrations you're having with the harmoniser. But I do see that having listened to your demonstrations your vocals are excellent. Really great. Don't worry too much about the harmoniser. I have never heard one yet I really liked. And most performers used to much of it anyway.

Well, I don't remember a difference in sounds or styles between the 3x and the 900. I've been using the Yamaha 950 for the last while, and I kinda forgot what the 3x sounded like. I will say that, like always, the Yamaha styles behave better for my "middle of the road stuff." I once equated Korg to Steve Gadd, and Yamaha to Ringo Star - both fantastic drummers, but Ringo knew just how much NOT to play. The Korg styles, in general, are a bit busy ... still.

I might just be "over Yamahized", but I find the key action of this 900 to be FANTASTIC. Better than I remember in the 3x. It's solid, responsive and very comfortable to play. That's one reason I'm trying so hard to make the other stuff work for me.



Wow - we differ there, my friend. I have been using harmonizers for 20 years, and gotten so much favorable reaction to the end result that I made it part of "my sound". I understand how many DO overuse it, but frequent use and OVER use are two separate things. I use it a lot, but I sing very differently when I use it - I think like a member of an ensemble, and not a lead singer ... I emulate my favorite vocal groups and try to capute the style of the song with the backgrounds blended in with the leads. Some of my favorite influences are:
Four Aces, Four Freshman, Four Lads, Manhattan Transfer, The Carpenters, Mills Brothers & Andrews Sisters (Yeah, I know - mostly OLD dead folks!)
I'm getting closer to the setup I want, and as soon as I'm there - I will do some dedicated recording of my "how to" use a harmonizer. I believe it's SO much more than hitting the footswitch to turn it on. It's a mindset and a change of approach.

As a solo entertainer, it's become a huge part of my sound to incorporate harmony, even if it's just on the main chorus parts of songs. My specialty numbers benefit from more intricate usage, but even an old, tired song like "Old Time R&R" comes alive when you add the harmonies to the chorus. It's just lifeless and boring with one, lonely voice singing that mid section.
In a more contemporary vein, Jason Mraz's "I'm Yours", Train's "Soul Sister" and Bruno Mars' "Lazy or Just the Way You Are" all shine like the sun with harmony on the chorus. As I mention it, Colbie Calait's "Brighter than the Sun" is another fine example.

So many songs can be spiced up with a tasteful addition of vocal harmony. Remember ... most of our audiences are NOT players, but I'll bet MOST like to sing ... at least in private. People relate to words, so I give 'em their fill!

I'm with spalding, your vocals are excellent on either mic!

I fully agree with Dave about the Harmonizer usage. I've been using them for longer than I would like to admit, and over the past few years they have really improved - even the onboard harmonizers.

That said, there are times when I don't think the audiences even notice that you are using the harmonizer. They tell you that the song sounded great, and they'll be out there on the dance floor singing along with you, but when you ask "How did you like the three-part harmony?" they often give you a blank stare and ask "What harmony?". On the opposite end of the spectrum, I've had people come up to me and say "Where are the other two singers I keep hearing?" Those of usually the folks that don't think you are playing at all, and either lip-synching, or singing over a CD and that's why they hear harmony.

I've heard UD on several occasions when he used his harmonizer(s) and I, for one, can attest that Dave is the master of vocal harmonizers. His vocals are superb without the device, but the addition of the harmonizer on some songs add significantly to an already outstanding vocal performance.

Cheers,

Gary

The 'perfect' setup is three great singers on stage with you!

Even IF a VH unit came out that was indistinguishable from real singers (and a few are getting close!), you STILL have the problem that they can ONLY sing when you do! Try to find much in the way of BV's that do that!

That's probably my biggest issue with VH... Even if they are PERFECT, they are still wrong! And they are still a LONG way from perfect!

At least my harmony singers never run off with the bass player, don't do drugs or have babies!!
DonM

DITTO!

Additionally, mine never call in sick, don't show up late, and I only had to pay for mine one time - after that they were all freebees!

Cheers,

Gary

I'll take some misbehaving against a metallic, phasey robot that ONLY sings when I'm singing..!

Actually, if backing singers didn't do drugs and run off with bass players, where do you think the next generation of keyboard players would come from?

+ + =

LOL! My mum wondered what she was smoking, and my dad is still trying to get that Green Onions riff down on his Precision. I'm not a bad lad, though.

To my ear(s), vocals through a keyboard sound anemic at best. I'd put that first on arranger improvements----before styles, right-hand voices and all the rest---especially for those who sing and perform live.

Well uncle Dave I am sure you use the harmoniser judiciously. I just believe having actually heard you that you are over thinking this issue a little bit . I don't know you at all really other than as an online acquaintance but I would say that from my point of view there is gold in your voice . Harmoniser or not . Certainly the korg harmoniser is adequate for what it is doing. But why cover gold with silver ?

Wow, such inspiring words-thanx all!
Well, I just finished the first trial run with what I believe is my answer.
Last night, the place was packed beyond belief all night, and I was in vocal heaven. I had no time to rethink anything, and the combination of the voice live touch2 and the iRig mixer seems to be the ticket for my dilemma.

All my concerns have been answered:
The vocal harmonies are top notch, again
The guitar comes through the speakers, AND triggers harmonies
The iPad plays my tracks and mp3 files with EQ available from the mixer ( internal mp3 is a tad quiet)

I can do a guitar job, and not loose the vocal harmonies or get used to a different tonal setup. The vlt2 comes with me and hangs on a stand. Easy-peasy.

I will do some recording for you all very soon. And Diki, if you think all harmonies need to be contrary lines to the lead, then it's probably best that you don't sing. Simon and Garfunkel, Phil and Don ... C'mon, man - harmony is an art form - complex, or simple. It's beautiful to create the lush complimentary tones on the fly ... And yes, the people DO notice. The trick is to spotlight the right songs, and sing within the ensemble, as a part of the group sound. I'll show you what I mean in another post.
You play chordal harmonies all night as a keyboardist ... Vocals benefit from the same treatment. If any of you think harmonizers are cheesy, gimmicky, or robotic ... Please stay away from them so my audiences can appreciate the art form in its respected state.

It's kind of what I expected. The vocal harmonizer sounds okay but external units do a lot job better in many cases. There might be a few tricks that could make the vocal harmonies sound a lot better and I see where Dave has experimented with various settings to get a desired result. Korg apparently put in a lesser quality unit than what's in the Pa3X, although that's just my opinion based on what I've heard from various online demos, including Dave's. Others have stated the same thing so it seems the observation is a correct one. You have to pay thousands of dollars more for a Pa3X which makes the trade off a lot less appealing. In other words, the Pa-900 is a lot better deal for the money and thus most people probably won't mind the less than stellar harmonizer on the Pa-900.

Dave's voice is really good to begin with and so it's somewhat of a disappointment that the harmonizer isn't up to snuff, which would have made the song(s) even more enjoyable if in fact it was up to snuff. Oh well.

Another possibility would be for Korg to provide a software update to improve the vocal harmonizer. Whether they choose to do it is another story. To my ears it sounds about as good as the PSR-s950 harmonizer. Korg could really improve overall sales on their mid-range arrangers if they decided to put in stellar harmonizers. Same goes for Yamaha. I'm guessing roughly 50% of keyboard players like to sing along when playing. Charge a $100 more and put in an excellent harmonizer. Makes sense to me.

Perhaps TC-Helicon conspired with Korg to make owners somewhat dissatisfied in an effort to get people to shell out big bucks for an external unit from TC-Helicon! A little farfetched perhaps but stranger things have happened. In conclusion, it appears the Pa-900 harmonizer lacks somewhat and therefore an external unit is advisable, especially if you perform live in front of a crowd.

All the best, Mike

Hey Mike,
Thanx for the kind words. After 3 high energy hours at a jumpin' South Jersey Casino tonight, I am convinced that the TC harmonizer with the RIGHT mic is worlds ahead of the VH2 that Yamaha puts out. I had more fun tonight than I have had in years ... Diana Krall even sat in!
(well, not really - but she sure does LOOK like her!)
The best thing Korg could have done to this kb would be to use an XLR mic input - t would make everyone sound good right out of the box.
TC developed the technology, buy Korg builds the units themselves, and they told me that the 900 does, indeed have a similar unit to the 800.
Could be better, but it's still WAY usable.

If only she had red hair . . .

DonM

She does, but she had to die it blonde to keep Dave at bay.

Gary

Put down the Viagra fellas ....looks are deceiving ......
Instead, would love to hear her play though! dave no iPhone Video?..

No magic, blue pills for me! Those old gals in the ER really put a hurtin' on ya when the 4-hour side effect wears off.

Cheers,

Gary

She didn't HAVE to play ... the visual was enough.

I swear - there were more sexy women working at this place than I ever saw at one time EVER. Best looking women I ever saw all at once. I might have to rethink the whole redhead thing ... it's hard to concentrate there!
It wasn't really Diana, Donny.

... As I said to Gary in another thread "we are getting OLD" ... apparently some faster than others ...
She wouldn't have to play a note for ME !!! ...

I know, Tony, but I keep forgetting why!

Thanks for the enlightenment Dave. So the harmonizer is more in line with the Pa-800 and not the same as the one in the PA3X. My hunch was correct. To be fair I've heard other Pa-900 vocal demos that sounded pretty good and I realize your demos were not commercially produced and were kind of spur of the moment type of thing and you hadn't had time to really experiment fully as far as what were the best settings and/or microphone to use. If you're saying it's a lot better than the Yammie s-950 harmonizer then I certainly respect your opinion.

I'll have to play the Pa-900 firsthand and then decide whether I would need an external unit. As I said in my previous post Korg and the others should step up to the plate and give customers a superb harmonizer because in the end it would result in more sales and would increase their own bottom line. Raise the price of the keyboards if they need to but including a stellar harmonizer is ultimately a win/win situation for both consumers and the manufacturers. Just like more realistic Drum Kits are a win/win situation also. Take the 'toy' out of the arranger and people will break down the doors to purchase them. Leave a few things to be desired e.g. vocal harmonizer, Drum Kits, key action, etc. and people may wind up looking elsewhere.

I'm glad you think the Pa-900 harmonizer is usable for live performances. The only harmonizer I consider superb right now is the Voice Live2 but were talking $750 and there's still quite a bit of room for improvement. But in the end that's what it may boil down to. I'll play the Pa-900 first before I decide one way or the other.

I hope Korg is listening. In fact if Yamaha produced a VH3 (Vocal Harmony 3) in collaboration with Digitech that could prove interesting too.

Thanks again for sharing those demos Dave. I've always said you probably have the best voice of all the members on this forum. Don Mason is another favorite.

All the best, Mike

Did I hear my name??? Thanks Mike, have another drink! It's an honor to be mentioned in the same thread as my favorite Uncle, crooner deluxe, lover of redheads and world-class picker.

DonM

Shux ... you guyzzzzzzzzzz.

Hey Mike - try the VoiceLiveTouch2 - it's pretty amazing, although I have to admit - after the third consecutive night using the 900s internal only ... I'm finding that"happy place" - I have, however rethought my approach to harmony, since using the built in unit. I use more 1,2 and 3 voice combos now, instead of my 2,3 and 4 voice choices. Having the dedicated velel knob right on the KB is SUCH a great tool for on the spot blending ... as I get more comfy, I'm sure tweaks will become less neccisary, but there is always that moment when .... it just needs a little sumthin', and you have to be ready to do it fast. The 900 (as well as the 3x) gives my instant control of all the important stuf I may choose to change on the fly at any given moment. I'll post a list of these handy shortcuts soon, but here's the Readers Digest version:

1) Vocal effects knob always active - no menu search to go dry for talking - grab, turn, done
2) Chord sequencer - every now and then I record a small sequence of chords in cas I need to do something that requires more concentration - I hit the play button, and I can start putting out fires while the rhythm of the song continues on auto pilot.
3) Vocal harmony level knob always active too - instant blend
4) 3 assignable buttons SO CONVENIENT! Mine are set to 1-manual bass(Lower sound) 2-auto bass OFF 3-auto accpt tracks 1 thru 5 OFF
This allows me to jump in and out of different styles of play within a song - I can hit the manual bass for a unique intro and pop on the arranger to start the tune - I often leave the tracks 1-5 OFF for the 1st chorus of a song so I have more room to build. I LOVE that thinned out sound. Gives my Rhodes chord sounds more room to breath in the RH.
5) EASY, fast access to the mic EQ controls - such a pleasure to make quick adjustments as the room changes. During set 3 tonight, I had to add some mid-range to compensate for dynamic changes to the room when more people came in. HINT: touch the freq range you need to adjust and then, DONT LOOK AT THE DIL - just turn it till it SOUNDS right. Sometimes, we EQ with our eyes, instead of our ears. Bad habit. It's stuff like that, that makes or breaks a performance. Stay fresh and exciting all night ... no matter what the environment throws at ya. Physics is an evil mistress, and she don't care how she makes you crazy!

More later - it's late and school starts for me tomorrow morning!
Ciao!

Try using that CS a bit more, Dave...

A very common structure for a song is to sing the first verse and chorus, then repeat the verse for solos, and then sing the chorus to go out. Rather than just the short vamp sections, try recording the entire verse and chorus while you sing, then hit play, and off you go. Solo using the bender properly (not diving to it when you don't have a chord change to play), play a full piano solo, play more outside substitutions without freaking out the chord recognition, do a harmonica solo, anything you want. Because only the chords are recorded, there's still plenty of variety you can drag out of them.

Not to mention, there are a ton of things you can do with just a simple blues progression. 12 bars of playing the head's chords, then hours of fun jamming..!

It's a LOT more than a simple riff creator.

... must be a redhead ...

Diki - I used the CS on very early Roland gear and loved the feature. I don't solo much - I'm more of a vocal stylist than a "players" player. I can hold my own with changes, but I run out of solo ideas pretty quick, so I just keep singin' till it's time for the next tune!

I only wish the CS info could be saved and stored for later use, rather than having to record it each time.
DonM

The Roland one can be. We are working on trying to get Roland to update the OS so it can be Linked to the Performance...

If only there was a way to sequence the data and save it for instant recall in a performance ... hmmmm.

When you start thinking THAT way - you may as well just sequence the tune! The CS is strongest as a quick notepad for some expressive touches. That's how I see it anyway. Play live - if you need a quick change - use the CS, and if you want several stored options - record them to SMFs. I switch between all formats all night every night ... it's great to have options.

No, there is one VAST difference between an SMF and a Chord Sequence. OK, two!

The SMF is set in stone. Other than using Markers to reorganize the structure on the fly (and truth be told, few even use this great feature), it comes out the machine identically every single time. Might as well be an MP3, right?

A chord sequence, however, is as fluid and changeable as playing in arranger mode is. You still get to choose when the fills happen. You get to choose when the Variations build and ebb. You even get to choose whether to change styles on the fly, either to a related style or something wildly different. You can put in stops and break/fills where you want, and end the piece whenever you feel like it.

And unlike the SMF, you can take over from the CS and play something utterly different. And then restart it and go back to the chord sequence. All seamlessly.

You can't do any of that with an SMF. Yes, the CS's easiest option is to lay down a quick 4 bar vamp, either on different chords or chords from the chorus, and then solo away on it. But it can be so much more!