https://www.roland.com/us/products/e-a7_tone_manager/

I can't say for certain as I know these keyboards only from a distance. But from conversations I tend to think that Korg PA arrangers are the most adjustable when it comes to editing. I think it worth to have a look at manual (reference manual) of a specific keyboard to get an idea. Some people say that synth sounds is where Korg is better, and Yamaha is better at acoustic sounds. As for Roland EA7, well, personally I'm not convinced that it sounds advanced enough for its price, but there are those who like this keyboard and I respect it.

Thanks. I realize EA7 is previous generation.

These arrangers can sometimes sound quite odd and hard to tell which sounds best. Most amateurs will not tweak anything and is hard to listen.

On some of the few hq videos the EA7 sounded very good yet on most other amateur ones it sounded like total crap.

Same with PA1000 or PSR etc. There is this unmistable cheese that require someone to tweak eq's and fx etc.

My last PSR-SX900 sounded fantastic (almost production ready) but the sound editing are too limited and style editor did not let me do what I wanted. Even extending a release an enveloppe didn't sound right on some patches.

I am hoping that this Roland has more qualities than shortcomings especially on the acoustic department.
If the sounds have enought consistency, low cheese factor and if that I can work basic envelopes it might fit the bill for my jamming and inspirational breaks.

Hi Yul!
I have had the Roland EA-7, but sold it again.
It did not meet the sound quality I was looking for.
If I may recommend you a keyboard in about that price range, it's Korg PA 1000.

/fozzie

The E-A7 will certainly not be competitive against a PSR-SX900 in terms of acoustic sounds. As I said, it should be way better than the old JV and XV sounds, but it won't come close to the large samples of Yamaha's newest arrangers.

I had two of them and got rid of them,EA-7 is total crap, it's more tailored for the Eastern musician and is very hard to understand, the effects were my biggest problem and how to navigate, I would recommend a BK-7m if you were to go with a Roland.

Vangelis, haven’t heard from you for a long time, hope you are feeling well.
Are you still playing the Korg Pa4x?

I feel the same way about the Roland E-a7 -- but in the right hands it is a it is a lot of keyboard. If you are the type of person who needs to keep your mind active, it is a great choice.
John C.

So did you have the impression that the BK-7m had better sounds than the E-A7?

It isn't a question of better sounds it's that navigation for someone who is not A Roland fan will have a very hard time, Yes! I still use the KORG PA4x for years to come, does what I want it to do, and half the price of a GENOS.

Yui’s post is a bit of a contradiction…. On the one hand he wants the immediacy and quick workflow of an inexpensive arranger, on the other hand he wants the deep editing of a workstation.

I think at the EA7’s price point, I rather feel it’s an either/or situation. It’s telling that those that put down the EA7 and got something else went with things that are triple the price or so! Korg have excellent voice editing, but you get what you pay for. Likewise Audya or Genos.

I never had (or have even seen) an EA7, so I can’t really comment on the D/A converter quality, but I haven’t heard any real complaints from those who used to own G70’s or E80’s.

Personally, I think at the price point the EA7 is a very capable unit, but you DO have to get your head around the ‘Roland way’, which has oddities like no editable voice storage (or at least a very clunky version unique to the EA7) and no effects edited storage (you always start from the factory ROM settings, you can’t store your own except in the Performance/Registation).

Each manufacturer have their own ‘sound’ and things they are best at, and things they are weak at. For me, Roland have a very strong edge in ease of editing style and sequence headers (the overall patches, effects and drum kits) and are without doubt (IMHO) the easiest to adjust a style’s overall sound. Maybe not the easiest to create one in the first place, but few of us do that, but we’ve all got thousands of third party and legacy styles, none of which tend to sound as good as the best ROM styles. Roland make it a snap to easily edit those older styles to use better sounds, better kits, better effects and adjust dynamics so older non-dynamic styles work well with newer multi-velocity sounds. And, if it’s easy, you tend to do it!

But, bottom line, if you’re looking for the ultimate acoustic sounds, or deep editing, the arranger isn’t really what you want. You’re already comfortable with computer synths, computer acoustic libraries are also several levels better than even the best arranger.

What an arranger is best at is throwing together a very quick base bed for a track, and then you replace most of it with better VSTi’s. And for that, it doesn’t matter a whole lot what the arranger sounds like. It’s much more important that the basic style selection has a lot of styles in the area that you are most interested in, and that they don’t sound TOO close to well known songs (I’m getting a little tired of factory styles that are so close to a hit record you can’t really use them on anything but that one song!).

It may be a different approach, but if recording is your focus, most of the advice from gigging arranger players isn’t really all that useful. An arranger is a very handy tool for certain jobs, but you are asking advice at a site where it’s often the ONLY consideration, and that’s not really good advice!