Listed for sale in the for sale section.
email me if truly interested.

Deane

And of course, the inevitable question: why do you sell it?

He had too much exposure to DNJ and acquired the terrible disease, SZGAADS. (Synthzone Gear Acquisition and Dispersal Syndrome.)

SZGAADS (pronounced SizzGads) can lead to total bankruptcy, reduced mental capacity, a compulsion to say "mine is better than yours, but it may not be better than mine", deteriorating eyesight, deafness, and hair on the palms of your hands. No wait that's something else. Anyway, it's bad stuff, trust me, as a recovering SZGAADS addict, I know whereof I speak.
Hammer told me his Korg was better than his Roland and both his Yamahas were better than the Korg, but the Roland may be better than the Yamahas. He's got it for sure.
DonM

P.S. How much you want for it?

hey Don I'm cured big time! ...LOVE My S950


hey Fran Hurry..... "HINT"

Wow!! Guilty as charged. I am full of the SZGAADS symptoms these days.
Simple answer to the question of why am I selling it. I have spent, on average, 7 hours each day for the last 3 weeks working with the OS and simply don't like the way it works or the results I am able to get from it. Others will find it much to their liking and wonder what is wrong with me - that's ok. It is just not the keyboard that
fits into what I do on gigs.

Deane

The New Tyros or what ever it's gonna be called Might be up your alley if not you can sell it too me it might have 76 keys

... until NEXT time ...

We are never cured, just in remission.
DonM

I suffer from GAS...

Gear Acclimatization Syndrome. The longer you have it, the better your prognosis..!

Deane, +1

You have a few of the same reasons I sold the G70 a few years back after only using it for about 4 months. Not sure about the BK-9 and whether the OS changed from the G70, but I found it very archaic, just didn't work for me.......and Deane you having been a Novell Netware guy I know you have plenty of tech savvy when it comes to understanding an OS.

Yes, I got it and loved it. Different strokes

Stephen,
you brought back a few memories - Novel - not many people remember what that is.
Yep, CNE, CNI - the whole nine yards. Made a lot of money those days.

Deane

Deane,

Yup, Novell is old stuff for sure. I'm about to retire from my full time job at the end of this year in systems support. We're looking for a replacement and starting to arrange interviews. My boss and I chuckle when we see the Novell certifications, yes at one time they were worth plenty of $$$, now at least where I work it just takes space up on a resume.

I can remember the very first efforts at providing wireless networking to businesses. It was a hard sell because everyone was afraid of security issues. I had a team of 6 people and we contracted ourselves out to places like General Dynamics, IBM, and Lockheed. It was quite an experience filled with all kinds of high level security requirements and secrecy. My lowest paid team member earned $125.00 an hour to give you and idea of the pay scale back then for experienced Novel personnel. The only problems we encountered were caused by the union guys who did't want us on the job. The night shift often would undo the work we had done that day. Management went nuts and we wasted a lot of time in useless meetings for which they got to pay my team over $1500.00 an hour to just sit there and listen to their complaints. They didn't believe the work had actually been done so we setup secret cameras to prove our point and low and behold about a dozen of their employees got fired. Yea, great memories.

Deane

... not so much for those dozen or so employees, but then we reap what we sow ...

It might be interesting to hear a bit more detailed explanation of what about the BK-9 OS didn't work out for you. It might help Roland develop more user friendly OS's, for one thing, and perhaps allow some of us the opportunity to explain how we somehow have overcome these problems, or found workarounds for them.

I am continually surprised at how some owners seem to have missed out on some of the shortcuts and alternative methods the BK-9 OS allows. There are many that want to be able to do things the way they USED to, on arrangers built by a completely different manufacturer. I find this a bit perplexing. I doubt many who own Korg's or Yamaha's, when I describe something that Roland's do that I find hard to figure out on a Korg or Yamaha, would think I made a good decision dropping them because I could not get used to their 'system'.

Add to that that most of the easiest editing options involve the iPad apps (or access options really, as the apps don't really ADD anything not already in the OS) which most haven't tried. But, be that as it may, it would be interesting to see what it is that proves so perplexing, and whether we can explain our solution to them.

Personally, I think that an awful lot of problems start because many older players want to work arrangers the way they used to, in the days when arrangers were quite simple devices with so few options, the ability to run them entirely from the front panel was easy. Nowadays, though, they have developed a complexity that defies this system. Hence, they have all developed the Performance and/or Songbook as the way to call up what you need for a particular song. Once you bow to the inevitable, most of them operate as easily as any other. You do the grunt work in advance, and simply call up the title.

Without that, each one has shortcomings to work live without using these tools. Thing is, each one has DIFFERENT roadblocks to 'free panel' usage. But they all make it harder than it used to be. I doubt, however, that many would want to go back to an arranger so simple, it COULD be run easily from the front panel!

Deane, perhaps you would be a little more specific about what it is that irks you to the point of selling it, and explain how other modern arrangers manage to make it that much simpler...?

Hi Diki,
First I want to say thanks for helping and trying to get me through the learning curve. I have a feeling there are several bugs in the current OS offered by Roland. The main thing that caused me to just give up on it was the fact that several settings I made to both rhythms and saved performances defaulted to the original versions after doing power off-on events. To be clear, yes I did read and re-read the manual. I did in fact do a factory reset and start all over using only the users manual and followed along page by page performing the tasks per the printed instructions. It actually was a good learning tool. For instance, for the life of me I could not get the favorites tones to stay the way I set them up after I powered down. Also, the tones assigned to the buttons, not favorites, would also not stay the way I had them set. I went through global saves, and what ever saves were offered to maintain my setups. I never got the split point to stay where I set it - even after doing a global save. I never was able to make the split mode stay on and had to turn it on after EVERY rhythm, variation, or performance change. The same was true even with rhythms and variation selections Either I am the dumbest person ever to own an arranger or there or bugs in the OS.

There are some really good features on the BK-9 which I did like. I wish all the arrangers I owned had this key feel. I liked the concept of favorite tones. I liked the concept of saving rhythms. I liked the concept of creating unlimited gig sets using the performance assistant. I do like the idea that factory tones and rhythms are protected but can be used to make adjustments and saved. Even the wheel was ok after getting use to it.

In general, I just don't wish to spend anymore time trying to get it setup the way I play. I know with the Korgs I have owned it was not this complicated or hard to understand. In about 3 days I took the PA900 out of the box to a gig with it setup up for all my playing needs.

Anyway, I don't want this to turn into "mine is better than yours" discussion. I truly believe for those players who don't rely on the arranger functions on the BK-9 and play full piano keyboard style using bass and drums the BK-9 would make a killer keyboard for them.

I hope this explains my decision.

Deane

I explained on the Roland-arranger site how to get your split points to be held. Did you not read that?

Perhaps you misunderstood the concept of Favorite Tones? They are not intended to call up an EDITED version of a Tone, simply the Tone from the regular bank. If you need a Tone with all edits, it has to be either in the Performance the way you want it, or in an OTS setting.

I simply feel that you tried to grok the BK-9 without reading the manual (how could you miss the split point hold if you had?) enough, and have assumptions about the OS brought in from other arrangers and think everything should be a Korg, or whatever you hold as your favorite?

I can probably think of several things a Roland can do a Korg can't. But if I buy a Korg, it's no good assuming it CAN do these. Every time you change manufacturers, assume there ARE going to be significant differences. If you can't live with these, don't change manufacturers! Take Donny... keeps going away from Yamaha, raving about his new arranger, then going back to Yamaha when he realizes it's not the same!

I think, on the whole, you have wildly underestimated how long it would take you to get used to an operating system utterly different to what you are comfortable and familiar with. I think there ARE ways to do what you want. But they aren't Korg's ways. They are Roland's.

But best of luck with whatever you settle on.

Diki,

With all due respect ( and gratitude for having helped me during my brief fling with Roland arrangers earlier on this year) yours is a very long story but to cut to the chase:
Roland should simply have retained a touchscreen. Contemporary keyboards have that many parameters that can be changed that is it virtually undoable not to include one. And even with one included ( like on the G70) I still found the Korg OS much more accessible. I know you and Fran will disagree but like Deane says it is not a contest. And Deane is making a point there as many times you and Fran have stated that you often bypass the arranger or part of the arranger using simply RH voices, manaul bass and drums.
All in all it was an interesting odyssey that Deane was on. I wish him well and advised him to try and intergrate the PSR950 with the Micro Arranger, both of which he is pleased with.

regards,
John

Deane wasn't having an issue with accessing the features he wanted. He simply couldn't FIND them! That's more an issue with reading and understanding the manual, and getting to the parameters than it is an issue with knowing how to do something, but not being able to get to it quick enough to use live.

I agree that a touch screen would speed things up bigtime, but the touchscreen does not add features! Or help someone that doesn't know how to do something in the first place.

And once again (pointed this out ad nauseam), a BK-9 and an iPad, which adds back all the touch screen convenience lost with the dual screens on the BK-9, is still considerably LESS than the cost of a G70 was. In fact, with a BK-9 and an iPad, you now have THREE screens active at a time... Lyrics on one, full front page on one, full editor on another. While the Korg's touch screen is OK (apparently, the PA900 has a MUCH better touch sensitivity that the PA3X, which, TBH I found pretty unresponsive compared to the G70's), it is still only capable of showing one screen at a time.

Originally, when the BK-9 first came out, I was quite dismayed and perplexed with Roland's decision. Now that the BK-9 Performance Editor is out for the iPad, I think things are a LOT better, and some stuff is quite a lot better than the G70 (which couldn't, for instance, display lyrics and allow sound access at the same time).

It takes time to find out what is good and bad in a new arranger, and new OS's often make initial impressions moot. Having had the BK-9 for a while now, I have made quite a change in my initial impression. I only wish others had the same degree of patience and determination to find out how to do things in an unfamiliar fashion.

To be fair Dean said he spent seven hours every day for the last three weeks with the new keyboard. That indicates to me a serious level of commitment to the board. He couldn't get his head around the operating system. That's not really the fault of the user that's probably the fault of the manual. I certainly would not have continued to struggle with the instrument for three weeks seven hours a day and be frustrated continually. He has done the right thing by giving it a go. It's not a lifetime commitment. He's not married to the keyboard ! He gave the board a good go and now is free to go ahead and pick something that is more suited to his learning style playing style preference or whatever. As they say in my favourite sport no blood no foul !

As I've said before manufactures should be making DVD's of the operation of these instruments. The BK9 does so much its impossible to cover it adequately in a manuel. Nothing like looking over someones shoulder and watching an expert preform the functions your interested in.
I was a computer teacher in a Middle School and I couldn't imagine having the kids read about how to do something new or even telling them how to do it. ( Kids attentions spans are very short these days, as is mine ) I would lock all the computers onto my computer screen and demo whatever I wanted them to do.
Done !! They would pick it up immediately.
Too bad there isn't someone nearby to help out in person. Theres things I've been wanting to explore using SMFs but haven't been able to find any help either so I've dropped the idea.

There are considerable resources available on the web to help those having problems overcome the roadblocks to understanding. In fact, I helped Deane out with a couple myself, and also posted the solution to one of the reasons he has given to selling it (being unable to figure out how to set a global split point).

I am sorry, spalding, but if I gt a Wersi, then after a mere three weeks, announced I was going to sell it because I couldn't figure it out, despite your help telling me how to do something I couldn't grok from the manual, you would probably have a different opinion about how difficult or bug ridden the OS was than me!

Personally, I find Korg's extremely opaque, I have quite an issue figuring out how to save what I want, where I want. I find some issues with how one can easily edit styles and SMF's. But every Korg user tells me, no matter how much time I may have spent on one (my friend's PA3X leaves me stumped quite often), they are quite simple to operate. How can that be? Pretty easy, actually!

Modern arrangers are incredibly complex beasts, and there are many ways to skin a cat when it comes to a lot of operational stuff. Just because someone can't find it easily (including web resources, or questions to the Tech Support guys at the Manufacturer site) doesn't mean it can't be done. Not only do you have to learn how to do something, you have to UNLEARN how to do it when you come from somewhere else. This takes time and patience, something I fear Deane hasn't allowed sufficient of to achieve fluency on the new arranger.

Bottom line is, nothing that he has stated as a cause for not keeping his gives me any problem at all. I somehow have figured out how to set global splits (and many other kinds of holds), I understand that Favorites can only call up ROM Tones, I know what to do to save a Performance into a List so that my edited Tones are where I need them. I think this quote is the most telling:



I am quite sure that, if he had not used a Korg prior to the PA900, he would have had as many problems than he has with the Roland. And I also think that basically expecting to go to a completely different manufacturer's arranger, and then expecting to be able to set it up so that it operates the same way you did something on a different manufacturer's arranger is unrealistic. Just as anyone would tell me the same, were I to get a Korg, then complain that I can't run it the same way I ran my Roland!

Korg have their 'way', Yamaha have theirs, and Roland have yet another... Never shall they meet.

And praise the Lord you could not, cause no matter how many chapters you want to devote to this issue the Korg OS imho is easier, faster and more accessible.
Anyway I agree with Spalding here, why don't you give it a rest Diki, I mean Deane is done with it ( and he is not alone) , you by contrast continue to be happy and satisfied with Roland. Enough said. Perhaps you could post some of your recordings on the BK9 just for a change ? I mean all the time and energy spent on this and other forums should allow for that, wouldn't you agree ?

regards,
John

Having read Johns suggestion to Deane regarding pairing the S950 with the KMA, I decided to try this with my S910. I midi'd my Yamaha lower to the KMA to control the KMA accomp. Even though I have only had 30 minutes on them, I am very pleased.

I have resisted this approach since lugging up to three KB's in the 1980's. This is very simple and light, since both don't weigh much more than my others alone.

The real reason is that I like the Korg styles and sounds, but I can't get my head around it's OS other than the basics. The small keys don't bother me for playing OTS solo's, as well as all the features of my S910.

This might be a Jack of all trades, master of none approach but it only the end result I care about.

It all comes down to what we are use to...Just as John says the Korg is easier to use...and Diki will tell you Roland is easier...and Gary will say Yamaha...

The fact is you have to apply yourself to understand a system..

Just yesterday, a friend (Pro musician), had problems with his Korg PAx...His start/stop buttom..sunk (literally)..on the job..He has taking it apart and fixed it, but he did not know there were work arounds to finish the job...He has played this keyboard for 9 years or so...and is a long time Korg owner..

I asked why he didn't put the start/stop on the assigned pedal..The look from him was my answer..He had no clue what I was talking about..
Sometimes this is the way folks use their gear..to do what they think they want and no further....We all have to understand the gear we use....I have found nearly every problem to be human error..

I never liked the Korg Folder system using their OS & Ive performed with many many KORGS in my carreer,...although I had no problems with using it but its more of a "comfort zone " while playing that makes a big difference....we all do it different. Just play and enjoy I say..

I am quite familiar with all the operating systems of Korg, Roland, Ketron and Yamaha. They all have their strong points and weaknesses. Let me tell you though, the familiarity did not come over night (how about 25 years or so) and after doing a lot of work at home, I still learn something new almost every time I play, much of it on the job.
I think Roland has become a little harder with recent models. Yes, the USB has made things better, but as far as real-time control, the G70, E50, 60 and 80 were much easier. Main draw back with them was the method of introducing new files via the card, using dedicated folders.
I actually believe Yamaha has the clunkiest OS now. (I will now take cover behind something large and bullet-proof).
Anyway, Deane's post was not asking for advice as to how to do something, or whether he should keep the BK9, he as just letting us know that he was selling it because he preferred other options.
DonM

Well said Don.

I have been Yamaha arranger only for at least 12 years and just lately switched to the new Korg Pa900 - two totally different OS's, but very similar things to be done with an arranger are done pretty easily either way for me.

I do have to say I think Korg has captured the market for me as far as blending the Touch screen with the OS.

For me - all manufacturers fall down because they do not print a menu tree for their OS where you can just look at the tree and know where stuff is on that tree - I always have to make my own and then everything falls into place instantly.

Bill G

The thing is, when someone here buys an arranger, then rapidly sells it, there is a certain taint to its reputation. All I am trying to do is point out that the reasons Deane may have given up aren't necessarily things you can't do, but things he didn't spend enough time finding out HOW to do, or finding out alternatives that exist with a different workflow.

I am not trying to persuade Deane to reconsider, his decision is his to make.

But I am trying to point out to others that may be considering a BK-9 that just because Deane had problems, that doesn't mean that anyone else WILL... You owe it to yourself to try it for yourself, rather than taking the impressions of someone that didn't spend sufficient time with it to find out alternatives to the Korg workflow.

In fact, Deane's BK-9 is available! Now's a great time to find out cheaper than buying a new one..!

And John, it's kind of hard to take seriously your taunt of 'give it a rest' when the next thing you do is evangelize how 'easy' the OS of YOUR favorite arranger is! There are plenty of people here with reservations about how easy Korg's are to use.You can't have it both ways... Deane's decision that the Roland OS is hard is valid means I should not offer a counter opinion, but that ALSO means that anyone else's opinion (including mine) that Korg's are hard to figure out means that YOU should not offer a counter opinion!

Or we should both agree that going from one arranger manufacturer to another is hard, but to experts of the destination arranger, 'hard' is a pretty relative term. I find Roland's easy, you find Korg's easy. That doesn't do a darn thing to settle which actually IS...

Diki has made a very good point here. My experience with the BK-9 may not be typical and it should not turn others off to the product. This is the main reason I tend not to post negative things about any keyboard. Each of us has our personal likes and dislikes about music in general and that tends to influence our thinking about various keyboards.

There is more here then meets the eye! My eye in fact. I have a very difficult time
reading in general due to a detached retina some years back. Therefore, if things are generally not intuitive on a keyboard I tend not to spend much time reading about them. However, with the help of my computer and lpad I did read this manual front to back - twice! The reason I have spent so much time with the BK-9 comes from my experience with the BK-7M which I liked very much but found it very difficult to use live. I had very high hopes the BK-9 would offer the same amazing sound that I got from the BK-7M with the convenience of having it all wrapped up in a true arranger keyboard.

I'll continue to play with it and see how it goes. If a buyer comes along before I get it gig ready it will be sold.

Deane

Good to hear it works for you Bernie and I am sure it will work for Deane or anyone come to that who wants to pair the small KMA to another arranger. For all of those with a Yamaha main keyboard I will add it here in another thread as we are straying from the subject, being the Roland BK9.
So here is info as how to best hook up a korg micro arranger to any Yamaha keyboard both MIDI and AUDIO wise:
http://www.synthzone.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/371635#Post371635

Regards,
John

Just in reference to the above, if you do want to link two arrangers, PLEASE contact your manufacturers of choice and beg, plead, cajole and DEMAND that they standardize the way you select Style Divisions and transposition.

While it is feasible from one arranger to select Keyboard sounds from another, there is still no standardization about syncing the two and having BOTH arranger sections play at the same time. Imagine a Korg's drums and bass, and a Yamaha's guitar Parts! Best of both worlds. Imagine how many different permutations of styles you could get selecting the bass from one, drums from another, then same style, reverse the Parts, etc., etc..

But currently, each arranger, unless of the same manufacturer as the master, completely ignores all Variation and Fill, Intro and Ending commands. So you can't run one from the other.

If enough of us show that this is a popular feature, odds are they will get together and come to an agreement about what codes to use. But only if we TELL THEM!

And Deane... get together with me on the Roland-arranger site, and let's see if I can't help you with either solutions or workarounds to problems you may have. I believe I've already posted the solution to the split point problem there...

Having owned Roland, Korg, Yamaha, and a few other brands, I can unequivocally state that the user/owner manuals for each and every one of them were poorly written. Not one manual, including the one that came my current keyboard, seems to have been written by a competent user. Instead, I believe they were assembled prior to the keyboard's release, placed in a Zip-Loc plastic bag, sealed and never looked at by anyone at the factory level again.

Fortunately, there are websites such as the Synthzone and PSR-Tutorial that tend to have a lot of very helpful individuals frequenting their forums, folks that have a significant amount of technical expertise, plus a lot of hands-on knowledge with the various brands and models. Not only does this save many new or inexperienced players a lot of time and effort by answering many of the technical questions that are NOT well covered in the manuals, but additionally, these same individuals usually take the time to provide step-by-step instructions on how to go about solving a particular problem. While this is not always the case on this particular site, without a doubt it IS the case at PSR-Tutorial, both on their forum and a number of other pages within the site itself.

As DonM said, the operating systems of each major brand has some great features, and each has their downsides as well. Personally, I've never really had a problem learning any of the operating systems, but without a doubt I can state that it takes years to learn every nook and cranny of any MOTL and TOTL arranger keyboard's operating system. And, just about the time you think you have an OS mastered is when the manufacturer makes dramatic changes to some of the more important features that you frequently use as a live entertainer.

Of all the operating systems I've used over the past couple decades I would say that Yamaha has been among the most complex and intricate. After nearly a decade of playing the 3000 I was still discovering things that I did not know existed - and I have a pretty analytical mind. That said, the S-950's operating system is quite similar, but guess what - I've spent two months getting this keyboard to sound the way I want, and I'm still not 100-percent happy. That's because many of the things we take for granted within the operating system have either been updated, and in some instances, removed. So, it's back to ground zero again.

Deane is pretty savvy when it comes to working with arranger keyboards, he has owned a lot of them, various brands, and like most of us, he knows what he wants to hear coming out of those speakers. He's quite aware of how to utilize most of the major features on every keyboard he has owned since I've known him, and like many of us, he spends countless hours digging into the bowels of the operating systems these amazing machines. He took a chance with his most recent acquisition, and unfortunately, it didn't do what HE wanted it to do. It's that simple.

Good luck Deane,

Gary