Tommy, thanks for the heads upon the PA800


[This message has been edited by Nick G (edited 04-18-2007).]

its an arranger forum. so why is nearly 90% of the stuff on this thread focused on personal attacks ? How about we agree between ourselves that if some one has caused offence whether innocently (as i believe Nick did) or deliberatly, that we simply email one another and have it out offline like normal people would rather than slag each other off publically ?

As far as the original thread is concerned, there is really no question that in terms of editiability and synth/true workstation like qualities , the PA series boards are well ahead of the competition. Even the daddy PA1X before OS3 had the possibility to use up to 4 oscilators at once , with each oscillator being able to be edited independently to the nth degree. Now post OS3 you can create upto 16 oscillators in one voice. The editing and creative possibilities are frightening. Yes it will eat polyphony like chocolate cake but imagine using the board like a true synth (not in arranger mode , playing multi textured pads and screaming leads !!!! None of the other arrangers have this synth like capability coupled with a true very useable sampler that can be used to layer new sampled sounds the onboard sounds and triggered by velocity swtiching. AS Squeak D said, all this can be done directly from the board without the use of additional software , just like a true synth.

This is a really important distinction for the zone readers that want an arranger but with true synthlike potential.

I think this is a worthwhile thread if we just stick to the subject matter.

Surely this is not even a matter for debate ....It was simply an opinion as this is also just my opinion.

[This message has been edited by spalding4 (edited 04-18-2007).]

[This message has been edited by spalding4 (edited 04-18-2007).]

Hi All
The reason I think Korg has more Workstation capabilities is because it is relatively new to the Arranger Market, and had only made Pro Instruments beforehand, therefore they are still learning as to what arranger players want. (I believe that this is also the reason why new users find the OS more difficult to get into, rather then say the Yamaha OS)
Quite a few SZ members seem to be promoting the fact that a lot of the newer boards have twin mp3/wave players which can morph between the two, however I would like to know what SZ members use this feature for, as unless you are going to use it as a DJ, I can’t see the point of it. (You only need one player for use as a backing)
Look forward to your comments on the last question.

Bill

thats definitely a good point there Bill about Korg coming from the Synth background.

In terms of tweaking abilities and editing functions, yamaha seems to have less than the korg obviously but i believe the on board a sound quality is better in the sense that the sounds sound more realistic.

also, anyone who really is a serious music producer wouldn't just buy a keyboard hoping it can do all. They would have a good PC/Mac program such as Cubase / Cakewalk / Fruity pro and use a keyboard to go with. most occasions the keyboard is quite basic...

There are always going to be people who pick out things/features that keyboard A doesn't have over keyboard B, who are generally people who have very little knowledge of real music production what so ever.

Generally for people who like to get on there and have a quick bash and get a good realistic sound, any of the high end synths are more than good enough... they each just have different ways or methods of getting there.

cheers,

Nick

Bill,

Korg introduced its first arranger in 1983 and the groundbreaking i3 is from 1993. You can read the complete story here:

Korg Arranger History

I think that Korg have had plenty of time to learn what arranger players want. And a lot of arranger players want Korg these days

Kind regards,
Tommy

Hi Tommy
I know of the I series, however never new about the SAS 20. (Although it may not have been released in the UK) The first Single Keyboards (They weren’t called Arrangers then) for the mainstream in the UK were from Yamaha, Technics and GEM. (All arriving towards the Mid 80s)
Thanks for the link

Bill

Bill,

I must admit that I didn't knew about the Korg SAS-20 either even though I have been playing arranger keyboards since 1983 (and you are right: they weren't called arranger keyboards then). Another link:

Korg SAS-20

Interesting to see how technology has progressed in 25 years.

Kind regards,
Tommy

[This message has been edited by TommyF (edited 04-18-2007).]

Once again another good post down the crapper because a few had to take things way out of hand and start with the mud slinging.

The topic of this post was about a comparison between the big three in terms of synth power. Nick say what you like, but one doesn't have to put their hands on ANY of these units to see which one behaves more like a synth. If you can read you'll see it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read a freaking manual and see which has more options.

Again due to someone getting all bent out of shape this topic which praises Korg for doing such a great job at meeting the needs in synth power is becoming another mine's better than yours. Nick if you can't see that this flame war was started by you then I don't know what else to tell you.

posted by Nick:
--------------------------------------------
In terms of tweaking abilities and editing functions, yamaha seems to have less than the korg obviously but i believe the on board a sound quality is better in the sense that the sounds sound more realistic.
--------------------------------------------

See.. here ya go Nick, you even say here Yamaha has less in the tweeking department, but look how fast you turn that around to say the "sounds" are more realistic. This topic HAD NOTHING to do with sounds. You just agreed the Yamaha has less voice editing options. Voice editing and synth power was what this topic was about. That being the case why are we at this point now with this topic? YOU TOOK A PERFECTLY LEGIT TOPIC AND HIJACKED IT!

Please Delete post

[This message has been edited by Nick G (edited 04-18-2007).]

"In terms of tweaking abilities and editing functions, yamaha seems to have less than the korg obviously but i believe the on board a sound quality is better in the sense that the sounds sound more realistic.

also, anyone who really is a serious music producer wouldn't just buy a keyboard hoping it can do all. They would have a good PC/Mac program such as Cubase / Cakewalk / Fruity pro and use a keyboard to go with. most occasions the keyboard is quite basic... "

Hi Nick. Firstly the difference between synths and arrangers are that arrangers predominantly mimic real life instruments like pianos guitars etc whereas synths to a greater extent contain sounds that dont exist in real life . Whether yamaha or korg sound more realistic really isnt the point about this thread even though i respect your opinion.

The key point about this thread is that Korg have tried to merge a fully fledged synth with a fully fledged arranger . There is an obvious market for this hybid instrument which is why the PA series has sold so well . The Korg PA1X for example has been a worthy competitor in the arrtanger market even against newer products in terms of sales and populariy.

Obviously the synth/arranger customers are out there and in good numbers too. I dont know if we should be making any judgement about their musical production savy just because they want an all in one instrument. Serious musicians cant be pidgeon holed like that. Afterall thats exactly why the korg series appeals to me.

The point of this post is that korg have facilitated to a much greater extent the ability to get really deep into sound creation/synthesis and arranger/workstation features for musicians who want the ability to do all the work that they do whether that is gigging live with a real band, playing as a OMB or combo or working at home/studio creating sounds or ideas and then sequencing/recording them.

I dont think Squeak is ntrying to denigrate any other keyboard. He is just saying that he has just discovered (where have you been Squeak!) the depth of this instrument in terms of its synth features.