Hello!

I am looking for an all in one keyboard to work away from the computer when I want.

My main interest is in acoustic, prch, electro, keys and drums. I like synth sounds yes but my PC will always outshine for most part.

The EA7 arranger is still being sold and the overall package seems ok.

Can anyone commeny on sound quality? There is very little detail about the PCM set used on this board.

How would the sounds compare in quality to JV or XV sounds? What about Juno DS?

I know it is not the most recent soundset and there is no Supernatural voices.

Yet there are many positive comments about this board especially of you make your own sounds. Otoh many are also dissing as bad sound quality.

I read the Triton sounded better which to me is a bad sign since Triton is quite compressed.

Some are comparing it to pa-600 even to a Pa-4x which is mindboggling since these boards clearly sound different.

Any commenys welcome.

Hopefully you can actually try one in a store to see/hear if it's a good fit for you.

Sometimes that's impossible, and if that the case, I would order from a store that has a generous return policy.

Other than that, check out all the YouTube videos you can, and read some more reviews.

Hopefully someone here has some first hand knowledge of this keyboard.

Good luck!

Bruno (John) owned an E-A7 if I'm not mistaken.

I'm very confident that the acoustic sounds of the E-A7 are way, way superior to the old JV and also XV samples that are standard samples from the 1990s and millenium. From all demos I listened to and briefly browsing though some sounds myself at a store a few years ago, the E-A7 is probably a combination of SonicCell sounds derived from the Fantom X and newer and many sounds created for the Roland Europe arranger line (E80, BK series). These are far superior to the old JV and XV sounds, which could nowhere compete in today's arrangers.

Is the E-A7 backward compatible? Will it play styles from the G-70 and other Roland arrangers? Other factors to consider is support, since Roland seems to have abandon the arranger keyboard, and third party files availability.
The dual screen looks like it may be useful, and the demos on YouTube sound great.
Good luck in your decision, didn't Diki have one? Speaking of...???

BK-9 do play G-70 styles, so my guess is that E-A7 is backward compatible as well. 👍
Btw, not seen moderator Diki comment anything for some time now? 🤔

Hello all and thanks for your responses.

Appreciate the feedback I was confused as the most recent Fantom and Zenology/Core use the XV PCM as a core of the sound. I do realize now that the E-A7 is based off of a different set of sounds (Bk, Sonic Cell, SRX etc).

I appreciate the youtube links yes I have seen them but can't help to think some of them are sounding a bit canned (the Bonners one are quite OK actually).

Can anyone please confirm that all sounds are editable (onboard or via external software). i.e. envelopes, oscs, detuning, filters, fx etc?

Thanks!

Judging by your post I would say your better off going the
synth/ workstation route to do what you need...The New Roland Fantom can easily do all your asking here the workflow is amazing. or even the Korg Kronos/Nautlas,M ontage etc.. .....
I just bought one truly an amazing unit. Good luck

Hello thanks for the recommendation. Yes I have looked at these but my computer can do a lot already.

I want an arranger to help me build basic song blocks and compose on the fly which I find hard to do on the computer.

A workstation sounds great (and much more expensive) but the performance, sequencing and recording are not like the arranger imo.

If the E-A7 can do some basic sound editing, it would be nice. Envelopes and detuning are a main ones I tend to use. This seems like a basic ask imo.

I believe there is a software sound editor too. Can anyone pleae confirm?

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!

Diki, just curious since I've never done that. Will most VSTi's translate directly from the arranger track? I mean, will it respond the same to things like velocity, volume/expression, tonal variation from octave to octave, etc. as the arranger voice.....or will the replaced voice need further editing? I ask because if it did need further editing, that would mean a lot more work (a real concern for us lazy folks). Also, wouldn't that approach force you to record everything (or at least those track planned for replacement) in MIDI? I record everything analog 'though I'm aware of SOME of the advantages of recording in MIDI.

chas

Hate to say it, but the lazy way seldom results in top quality results..! You and I both have similar opinions about most arranger music, and much of it derives from firstly the repetition problems (I’d fire a drummer that always played the same fill all the way through a song!), and secondly about the lack of voice leading (an arranger never knows the next chord until you play it!) and if you want to make music that sounds like it was made by musicians not machines, you HAVE to do what it takes to fix those issues, and that takes time and effort…

You can always make studio music building one track at a time, but as a solo producer, you never get that feeling of interacting doing that. That can often lead to a struggle playing parts that leave room for other musicians when those parts aren’t there when you first lay it down. This is where the basic arranger bed can get you into playing parts that work ‘within’ an arrangement.

But yes, on the whole, if I’m doing an entire track, an awful lot of the original rough is replaced or edited extensively. And that means recording with MIDI. Then you can do tricks like editing drum fills so no two are identical, or adding the odd ‘kick’ or some ghosting. And editing the bass line and guitars so there’s a certain degree of moving towards the next chord, or adjusting voicings if the part jumps around a bit too much.

A lot of the time, things like piano parts or strings, horns etc. simply need their MIDI part thrown into a much better VSTI and a little editing, but sometimes just simply redoing them gives you something that obviously feels less robotic.

There are times when the basic arranger rhythm section will suffice unedited, but it’s few and far between… When the goal is to make music that DOESN’T sound like a machine made it, there really are no shortcuts that involve a machine except just to give you a full sound to start your project off with.

Me, I love playing most of it or editing what needs to be edited. Who wants to let a machine have all the fun?! That’s not lazy, that’s simply denying yourself fun!

Hello! I have finally obtained a E-A7 from 2nd hand returned unit at my local music shop. It has been only 1 week since and want to share my findings so far. I do not do covers, I only noodle and compose melodies and musical explorations.

It is a true Roland experience they must have put a lof of effort in the design. The performance controls are extremely well thought of. This keyboard is not for a novice user (it can be but many features are under the hood need some experience). It might hold it's own as a standalone keyboard without arranger features however for the price one should consider using everything is has to offer.

This seems like a very well made product so far. The hardware feels very robust and the key bed is quite hard and very solid. The 2 screens are a bit futuristic but it's nice to have them. No complaints whatsoever. Just need to turn down the constrast.

Sounds : My first goal was to turn off the speakers as I want to hear it from my PA. I am using a dummy 1/4 male plug into the headphones jack to turn it off (hopefully there is a better way.

I have also disabled the speaker EQ in global settings (the line/speaker light on the button still stays on however). Also disabled the Master EQ and compressor. This really helps with the overall sound as it is easier on the ears. I will use EQ and compressor only at a later stage if ever. I would like to emphasize that many of the online demos probably have bad settings and this is why the keyboard is hard to evaluate imo.

It took a while to get around the User Programs (UPG) and how they are set up with Reverb, Chorus, MFX etc. After reading the manual, it is possible to figure out.

I am liking the tones. Actually the frequency response is very wide and high quality. Lots of deep bassy sounds, lots of highs as well. I have not found many bad samples, looping or aliasing so far. I am sure there are some legacy dated sounds in there but overall the variety is wide. You have to use the right sound for the right purpose. The synth tones are well made and using the mixer for envelopes is very easy (some tones you cannot edit but there is a basic filter and envelope in the "kbd mixer" option as usual in arrangers.)

The acoustic tones as quite OK. Probably not to the level of high end libraries but still quite good for any electro, pop or musical soundtracks. I have found there is a certain level of quality that is enough for many needs and does not need to be exceeded. Anything higher is perhaps wasteful.

I will continue to experiment but so far so good in the sound department. The sounds is the usual mixed bag of classic and have references to XV, LA (D50), etc. Synths need to be layered like any other. Slight detuning, vibrato etc always helps keep things fresh.

I agree with turning off Roland Master EQ and compression (and, to be honest, most arrangers) if you are using a PA or decent studio monitors.

If you think about it, the onboard speakers in most (imho, all!) arrangers are pretty terrible, and can’t handle an arranger’s full dynamics at any decent level, and suffer from poor bass response. But the manufacturer slaps on aggressive EQ and compression to compensate. Unless you are using the built-ins or really crappy computer speakers, you are robbing your arranger of its dynamics. And those, compared to live music or well recorded music are already pretty compressed.

I keep my master compressor off at all times with one exception… if I’m in a performing situation that needs VERY quiet background music, but still energetic, I slap on the mastering compressor to tame the peaks.

I wish more people would try to appreciate the sound of their arranger without these artificial sound restrictions. You’d be amazed at how live they can sound when you’re not squeezing the bejeezus out of them!

You and Diki
Thanks for the informative updates on the overlooked EA7. Just goes to show that you need to dig in to your keyboards to find out their true capabilities. I'm going right over to my BK9 to turn off the Masterig Tools and see what happens. Always something new to learn

I found that when I turned off the compressor and EQ, there were a few styles that sounded a bit off. I rather think the style creator had created them with the compressor on, and had adjusted the velocities and volumes to hit the compressor so the final mix was reasonably balanced. But other styles suddenly became more open and left me more room to play ‘inside’ them.

The advantage with the BK-9 (I can’t remember if the EA7 has dual mastering sections or just the one) is that, with one compressor for style/SMF and a different one for the keyboard sounds, if your touch is very light and you struggle to get your solo playing as even as the backing, you can always slap some compression on your playing without compressing the backing. And with two sections, if you do get rather frisky with your lead sound (don’t get me started about how often I’ve heard that!) at least it won’t duck your backing, making the problem even worse…

By the way, if you haven’t already noticed, Roland don’t put the audio files through any mastering tools stuff at all, so this is the best way to set up your monitoring/PA EQ initially… Use a high quality CD .Wav rip on your stick and set your PA/monitors so that sounds nice and flat (don’t overhype the highs and lows, just make it sound nice!) while the CD rip plays. Now try the styles, and see how open and dynamic they now sound!

For many years, I have often stated that most arranger keyboard owners never scratch the surface of their keyboard's operating system and features. I get calls and emails nearly every day from someone needing assistance on features that are right at their fingertips and clearly spelled out in the owners manual. In fact, I know of many pro entertainers that never have removed their owners manual from the plastic bag it came in.

Another, snowy day in Paradise,

Gary

Gary your so right and I'm somewhat guilty of that. I've spent many hours on my keyboard and still have not mastered all its features.
I do sometimes get tired of programing and escape to my piano for some " just play time " Best of both worlds

So going by my 2nd week with the E-A7 using as an inspirational tool.
My goal is to build music from the ground up to be exported to the DAW via USB.

Most included styles are not really for me maybe except a few to get some groove going.
Since there is no sequencer, the style creation and pads are my new best friend.

I was having doubts over the past couple of days of the ability to pull it off.
I now have figured it out and it's quite a good performance/backing instrument, one of the best I have tried recently.

Creating drums elements in a blank style is quite easy to do I really like this part.
Drum kits are really nice especially is you are careful with velocity.

However the accompaniment and pads with the chord detection were driving me nuts.
I usually like to turn it off chord detection so it behaves like a pattern sequencer but this not possible on E-A7.

So switching the chord detection to "pianist" and making sure I am not hitting "chords" on the left side, it behaves like a fixed backing part. I believe you can go up to 2 notes simultaneously without having your stuff transposed (if you make a mistake do a C major it will revert back).

This means when the left side is used solely for bass purposes OR monophonic sounds, then the chord recognition does not take effect. Great!
You are free to use pads for sequences without having it transposed. This was my main gripe and I think I have it covered.

Going back to the sounds, they are all quite nice and especially true of the acoustic sounds.
The synths are good too but adjusting the ADR envelopes in the mixer is a bit tricky (as usual for any arranger) and not as flexible as a real synth but acceptable.

Not convinced about the reverbs, I still need to experiment. I think they are high quality but getting it right is tricky (I tend to use it less and less anyways nowadays).

I tried the tone editor. Pretty nifty tool it can access layers, LFO's, envelopes and filters modes where you cannot using the hardware.
It is really almost like the new Roland editors with partials. My only disappointment is there is no "keyboard tracking" available as modulation source. Again, typical of most arrangers and no biggie.

I believe I will hold on to it as it is flexible, good sounding and a productive enought that I can justify it.
I really wish they would add a soft switch to turn off the internal speakers. Having an dummy plug in the headphones is really weird..

If you are trying to do held fixed patterns, try creating them in some synth software, and exporting as .Wav loops and importing as multipads. The audio loops won’t follow the chords…

But yes, you are coming across the primary difference between arpeggiators and arrangers. The arranger doesn’t look at the notes you play to drive the pattern. It derives or extrapolates a chord from the played notes, then the pattern associated with that chord is played. An arpeggiators doesn’t care what you play, it just plays it!

Different strokes..!

There are some arrangers now that have rudimentary arpeggiators as well as arranger chord recognition, but even the best of them are far behind a modern workstation’s arpeggiators functions.