LINKING THE YAMAHA PSR ARRANGER TO THE KORG MICRO ARRANGER.

MIDI:

YAMAHA:
Go to: FUNCTION : MIDI : select KBD +STYLE
Now change to the following settings:
Lower : channel 4
ALL OTHERS : off

SAVE THIS SET
(move righthand top corner button from preset to user, than SAVE)


KORG MICRO ARRANGER:
GLOBAL EDIT MODE >> PAGE 4 : MIDI SET UP: DEFAULT
GLOBAL EDIT MODE>> PAGE 7: MIDI IN CONTROLS: chord 1 : midi channel 4
All other channels: off

SAVE THIS MIDI SET.


Now START playing by pushing the START/STOP button ON THE KORG, but play your chords on the Yamaha. Alternatively if you want to play a style from the Yamaha you simply push the START/STOP button on the Yamaha. In other words whichever style engine you use, you will only be needing the Yamaha keys for the left hand.
As to your right hand playing you can now vary the sounds on either the Yamaha and/or Korg without having to push any more buttons



AUDIO

Starting on the assumption that to begin with you want to have the sound of the KMA through the Yamaha PSR speakers you can do two things for best results. ( if you are using
external amplification during gigs you may use a mixing console and all this does not necessarily apply).

Connecting the line-out of the KMA to the “auxiliary Line-in “ of the PSR generally does NOT do the trick for the simple reason that the signal is too weak. To circumnavigate this minor problem the best (but one) solution is to connect the KMA HEADPHONES to the PSR “aux. line-in “. (go easy on the KMA volume slider to sort out best settings).
The most ideal solution however is another one and that is adding one of the smallest mixers(and cheapest) that you can find in between the line out ( or headphones) of the KMA and the line in of the PSR950. Personally I can recommend the Behringer Xenyx 802, on sale for approx. 50 bucks.
You need the TWO microphone connections on the mixer as they enable you to do two things:

1. You can fine-tune the input sensitivity for each channel. ( only the two mikes do that)
2. You can master EQ the sound of the KMA,. Adding a bit of high EQ does miracles here.

Recommended !!!

regards,
John

Posted this on the other thread, but it bears repeating...

This time Diki your comment is rather absurd.
If you had read my posts properly you should know I am simply talking about playing the KMA via the keys of the Yamaha ( main keyboard) and not your intricate way of mixing stuff.
NO ONE needs a manufacturer or even intricate manual, the things I mentioned above suffice. Come to think of it, you have neither so I do not really understand where you are coming from here.
Anyway those who do have it like Bernie, Deane etc. know it works, and works well.
Enough said.

regards,
John

John, Diki is looking at the bigger picture...just as Roland and Sequential circuits did in 1983...making it possible to play the Micro on your PSR..

Hi Fran,

The point I am trying to make was that it is relatively easy and takes up 15 minutes tops to connect your Yamaha PSR( and probably Tyros as well) via MIDI to the KMA and play the accompaniment of either via the Yamaha keys. In addition I added a well-meant advice to do the same for the AUDIO.
Diki's contemplations are straying from this simple advice into the realm of complicated MIDI connections that might deter any average keyboard player.Capisce ?
Oh and........for a change Roland was not even entered here in the equation so I guess that means you and Riki will have to take a backseat this time ??!!!

regards,
John

John, thanks for the directions on hooking up the KMA to a standard sized key arranger.

Pretty much the only beef players (including me) had with the little Korg was that it was a bit difficult to play, especially if you had big fingers.

Your very concise and simple instructions will make it easy for even a novice to link the two instruments together.

Ian

John, of course Roland was entered..without MIDI..this discussion would not be..

BTW: who is Riki?....Don't lose that number

...one should allow folks even my age a typing error, be fair Fran....( sorry Diki)......

Thanks Ian, I am sure many of those who do use a KMA as an add on to their yammie set up will find it convenient to play the KMA via the Yamaha. Of course they could also link the Upper sounds but then you would lose the advantage of having to keybeds at your disposal for RH sounds. But in my basic set up here explained you have the advantage of playing whichever accompaniment on the Yamaha , keeping your RH sounds on the Yammie as well, and play the extra bits for the RH on the KMA, which is not too bad really once you get the hang of it.
By the way this works equally well with any Korg- Yamaha combination. At present I have my PSR on top of the PA800 and I only play accompaniment by using the PA800 keybed.........


regards,
John

I'm not sure why what I suggest is in any way complicated or hard to understand, except to perhaps someone looking for any reason to NOT understand it..!

Essentially, if you join two arrangers together with MIDI, the natural reason to do so would be for them to work together as one. At least, that's how I see it. Restricting inter-arranger communication to merely playing one's sounds with the master keyboard seems so short sighted. Why bother with an arranger as the secondary sound source at all if that is the case? Plenty of great modules, rack workstations, even laptops running VSTi's, if all you want is a selection of different Tones to play in the RH section of your arranger.

No... you link two arrangers together with MIDI, the first thing that springs to mind is, how about running BOTH arranger sections together at the same time? Then, call up two similar styles (heck, two dissimilar styles if you want to get creative!) and then, by using Performance mute track controls, decide which Part gets played by which arranger. Pick and choose the best of each, and you end up with a style that overcomes the limitations and restrictions of the other. The best Roland or Korg drums, the best Mega Voice Yamaha guitar Parts, the horn lines from one, the string lines from another...

Merely by using mutes to silence the Parts we don't want to hear. Quite simple, actually. And you CAN do this quite easily now. You simply set the slave arranger's chord recognition input to the channel of the master's chord recognition area. Then you sync the clocks together (set the slave to MIDI clock, easily done) and set the slave to Start when the master does. Nothing complicated at all. Maybe you should try it, John...

The problem, though, is that there is no common MIDI commands to select Variations and Fills, Intros and Endings between different manufacturers. So, you start your 'super style' and both of them happily play the arranger parts you have set, but the minute you select another Variation on one, the other one blindly ignores that. Ask for a fill on the master keyboard, and the slave ignores it completely.

This is not complicated stuff... no more complicated than say starting one arranger, and having the other one start up in sync with it. Any two arrangers can do this very easily, because the MIDI codes for clock sync and Start/Stop are standardized. ALL arrangers and WS's, all MIDI gear follows a common protocol. Nobody even THINKS about it, because it simply WORKS!

But the arranger manufacturers have all decided that they will select Style Divisions using DIFFERENT codes, and none of them even allow the user to change those. So Roland and Korg select Divisions using PC#/32/00 codes, but DIFFERENT ones, and Yamaha use sys-ex!

All I wrote about was putting pressure on the manufacturers to standardize which codes do what. Then, when you select Variation 3 on the master arranger, it would trigger the Variation 3 on the other. Nothing complicated, nothing arcane, and nothing the user would even have to THINK about, any more than he thinks about when he presses Start on one, they both start (if set to).

But the end result is an Über-arranger, with exponentially greater potential than just one by itself. Without any baffling increase in complexity.

We are seeing just how powerful some of the MOTL arrangers are, and even little things like the KMA. But until those codes get standardized, they will never work together FULLY, and linking them with MIDI relegates the slave arranger to simply being a dumb sound module for the master arranger. What a waste of potential..!

One simple agreement by the manufacturers, and our musical possibilities explode. Back in the early 80's Roland had one communication protocol, Oberheim had another, Sequential Circuits another... nothing talked to anything other than the modules made by the same manufacturer. Then they got together, and hashed out MIDI. The rest is history. There was an explosion in the keyboard industry, everyone made more money, and a decade of synth powered pop music dominated the charts. All because a few manufacturers standardized their codes.

I truly believe, were the Big 3 to do the same now with Division codes, we would see the same explosion in arranger capability. We take simple MIDI communication for granted these days, John. But it didn't always used to be like that. To those unwilling to envision the future, even the idea of MIDI seemed too complicated. But were the manufacturers to standardize the Division codes, linking two arrangers so they work as one would be no more complicated than what you are suggesting... the mere playing of one's sounds from the others keyboard. In fact, to many here, even doing this can be quite complicated! You, however seem to find it easy, and I am sure you would find it equally easy to have two arrangers work as one...

But ONLY if the manufacturers standardize. And that is up to US to show them the demand for it.

sorry Diki but you are so missing the point, I can hardly believe you not getting it....

regards,
John