Lost arranger features Pa1000/700

[siebenhirter]

Hello,
this only is one of Pa1000/700 LOST ARRANGER FEATURES.

... "AUTO-FILL" keeps sabotaging my work. This "FEATURE" has proven to be a powerful tool indeed, to prevent the user from arranging music the way they want it. ..

*
With successors Pa1000 / 700 Korg added that usual upgrade of RAM size and Factory library but dropped most than 10 traditional Style features without reason.

Instead providing velocity expression to style tracks , activating OSC Amp AMS to sliders , improving and creating more regions for legato sound engineering , improving and adding custom parameters for "Ensemble", creating a decent Leslie effect and so many other functions are still lacking from a professional arranger.
*
With Pa1000 / 700 Korg lost arranger features like changing chord recognition to be changed via STS/KbdSet because "StylePreference" now is saved globally.

So in case using a kind of chord recognition (maybe Fingered3) you want to change to advanced mode (Expert) using a Full Grand Piano for Jazz improvisation (not splitted) you could do this with simple changing STS/KbdSet. With direct access / single button press Pa800/500 was ready to play without pressing three buttons to enter Global mode while performing in real time!
*
In case Pa800/500 using Styles Left hand velocity function to Fill 1-4 was an extraordinary way for an one-man-realtime-performer to automate the certain fill function in a style according to STS/KbdSet that was playing in order to minimize button clicks (for Fill-Ins and Break), while he has to play harmony changes of a song. Only this way he could catch up variation changes where not feasible by Auto Fill and smoothly manage the rhythm changes.

Now this velocity to Fill option does not exist even at Global mode of Pa1000 / 700!
*
Maybe those realtime facilities are odd for someone or never had thought about using them is another thing. They were there for so many years in PaSeries for demanding and advanced real time performers !

Nothing is more important in an arranger than the real time automation facilities that will make the difference for a performer and choose his keyboard brand. Also home/studio user need that facilities without limitations for playing.

Naturally it is annoying to hear it is claimed now Pa1000 is a "stripped version" designed for people, who for some reason can't or won't pay prize of flagship - especially if it is submitted by a user. It is not just conclusion, because mentioned features was not missing at predecessors of same class.

.. my problem is that I like the portability of an all in one device (with built in speakers) where I can tuck it under my arm and go with it ..

Now maybe someone can realize how a brand developer can downgrade the performance of an advanced Musician that has bought this arranger without the slightest notice that those features are discontinued (as had before with Pa800/500). This also applies to users also like me, who do not need a flagship of a keyboard with a separate amplifier, but like the portability of an all in one device (with built in speakers) like Pa1000/700.

As result the way these arrangers have been developed - not being fully backward compatible - will keep me and maybe some more people from upgrading.

.. Trying to help in here is pointless. .. Pa1000 is stripped version design for people who for some reason can't or won't pay prize of flagship. ... Take it or leave it. .... Stop complain about something,..... unless you find error. ... .

NO, better stop glossing over those fatal flaws that were made in the product development of the last series, that means a strong limitation of the functionality for musicians who knows Pa-Keyboards for a long time. Better support those users who try to achieve the functionality of arrangers with functionality, which we had since years ago in this class of arranger keyboards.

PS: Most of arguments here are from 2016 (and older) and from various users of the forum - but the issues are still up-to-date, as you can see from various threads here.

[johnsmies]

Well said Siebenhirter. I fully concur with you. And while the PA1000 is a great arranger keyboard in itself Korg continues to astonish both in the positive ( 2.0 upgrade for PA4X , style packs,) as well as in the negative by throwing overboard many trusted and valued functions from the older series, as mentioned by you. And not to forget the omission of the meanwhile famous
Style Change buttons and the sacrifice of Performances to the imho totally superfluous Keyboard Sets. It is a shame that no one with Korg seem to be decent enough to at least seriously comment on and reply to our findings.
Hopefully someone, somewhere will see the error of their ways though I myself am not expecting much in this area. No doubt there will be a PA1000 update to cover some of the bugs but I doubt there will be drastic concessions as required and wished for by its users.

kind regards,
John

P.S. I am nearing the completion of my first JS Resources Set for PA1000

[siebenhirter]

.. am nearing the completion of my first JS Resources Set for PA1000

*
Hello John,
congratulations - I'm already curious about your JS Resources, although I did not get a Pa1000 due to the restrictive range of functions.
*

.. not to forget the omission of the meanwhile famous Style Change buttons and the sacrifice of Performances ..

*
Of course, the two examples in my thread are not exhaustive, but only representative of the fatal flaws that were made in the product development of the last series.
*

.. is a shame that no one with Korg seem to be decent enough ...

*
Maybe, but above all I find it a shame when customers / users of these instruments create a bad mood as in the thread "PA1000 auto fill / 4 fill buttons", where they have tried to classify the indication of a defect even as a trolling.
*
We did not talk about special new wishes/requests, but rather of useful functions that we already had in the starter models, but are now partly missing up to the upper Pa-class.

In doing so, I lack the understanding of the motivation to oppose such hints.

I also do not like for anybody feel like beeing offended, so quoting of passages I found are nameless:

.. Stop complaining about something, ..... unless you find error" Many musicians love and enjoy playing Pa1000 .... and many keep trolling excellent products, trying to find any excuse 't, this is nothing personal to anybody ....... just conclusion ...

*
For me that's not just a conclusion - that's destructive. Nobody is "keeping trolling excellent products" but speaking about insufficiently performed or missing features is constructive feedback.

To mean "stop complain about something" or "take it or leave it" are unfair phrases. This blocks the constructive efforts to convince Korg that not only advanced musicians benefit from features that are criticized as missing. This also applies to users who can not imagine to use unknown functions, or to use functions they do not understand, or to use functions they even do not know.
*
Anyone who evaluates keyboards for meaningful functions not only needs a songbook and SMF / MP3 player, but also needs real arranger and style functions that have been available so far!

Of course, fewer functions are needed for only scheduled playing of a music program by song title. However, it should also be possible to play intuitively and freely with Pa-instruments, instead of losing these opportunities more and more with each new product line.
*
It is not true that eliminating the functions of a keyboards simplifies functions - it only loses in terms of performance and functionality. Think that happend to parameters that are moved without reason and without replacement from the individual areas into the globals.

Who is overwhelmed with the operation of functions that he does not need, he does not need to use them - do not touch them that's easy. But if a useful function that already existed is missing, that is a step backwards in development.

[MikeVVught]

There are several other things I miss on both Pa700 and Pa1000, ie you cannot connect the EC5 to it. On my Pa800 I use it a lot so it would be a real miss to me. Same for the outputs: Pa700 and Pa1000 lack Out 1 and 2 (unbalanced Outputs where the sound comes out 'dry'). In my homestudio I use those extensively to record my stuff dry 'cause I use effects of my DAW.

I don't want to discuss the (dis)location of switches like the pads... Those things are a do-not-buy to me... Too sad...

@John: keep up the good work, you're doing a fine job making JS Resources, I'm known to these!

[siebenhirter]

There are several other things I miss on both Pa700 and Pa1000, ie you cannot connect the EC5 to it. On my Pa800 I use it a lot so it would be a real miss to me. Same for the outputs .... things are a do-not-buy to me... Too sad...

Hello Mike,
sure, there are some more things I also miss since the last product series was presented. Therefore it is not true "Pa4x has all you need, Pa1000 is stripped version", because even the middle class from previous series had that features, which furthermore is expected and required as the basic characteristics of a professional arranger (abbreviation Pa-). With each new series functions of the successor models are reduced - even if nobody wants to hear.

I understand if also you call things as "too sad, do-not-buy". But I did not want to start again a listing about this.

Rather, I wanted to emphasize once again how counterproductive are the pointless and inappropriate counter-arguments with which one is confronted here, as soon as one publish adverse characteristics or missing features here.

I think this userforum should not be a community of faith but more of interest, in which you can talk professionally about the characteristics and use of keyboards. Next I think a musical instrument is a device to play with, but is not a sacred object to praise it like a relic.

So it must already be allowed to seriously mention here also disadvantageous characteristics of these devices, without being immediately reproached with senseless and inappropriate counterarguments like "Take it or leave it - many musicians love and enjoy playing on Pa1000".
*
Is it really believed that the following sentences helps a user in some way: "Trying to help in here is pointless. Only 1 thing do add, Pa4x has all you need, Pa1000 is stripped version design for people who for some reason can't or won't pay prize of flagship. Everybody before buying something should read deeply manual and study opinions about product,... especially professional users"?

Every single sentence in this contex was insulting - even if it should be correct, but that too does not apply:
- Pa1000 is not a stripped version, if one criticizes features and functions as missing, which because was not missing even at predecessors beginner class.
- of course, manual is read and there for the first time is noticed, which features were omitted (also stay omitted if one did not read)
- who changes from a predecessor model of the same class or a starter model in the new series, expects at least the same features, but no retrogression
- whether the customer is classified as a professional or home musican has nothing to do with it
*
Unfortunately maybe such smug insults seems to get common in this forum - that may be the only reason why trying to help here will become to get pointless.

[johnsmies]

Mike and Siebenhirter,

Thank you for your cricitical but constructive contributions here. Incidentally Siebenhirter which PA do ou actually play at the moment ?

As a former PA800 owner ( hell, I bought it back three times !!) I can sympathize with Mike. But I also have to be realistic. For a moment I wavered and considered buying it again ( for the fourth time) but then I realised too many years had passed and a third-hand PA800 more than 10 years old would become a financial liability. So eventually I took the plunge and purchased the PA1000. And Mike, fair is fair, once you have delved deep into it and programmed it to your liking ( my JS Resources are nearly finished) one cannot but admit that it is defintely a step up from the PA800 and certainly the PA900. Basically it is all there , the only thing I very much regret is the way the Italians have gone with the new set up, discarding the Performances and introducing silly terms such as keyboard sets, etc.etc.
but this has been reiterated here quite a few times. Soundwise, stylewise , amplification wise and Harmonizer wise the PA1000 is a most atrractive arranger keyboard only marginally less than the PA4X imho. Besides, due to its internal speakers you get what you or someone else has programmed.
I recall when I produced the JS musical resources for the PA800 there were several with a PA2X who also donated to get these resources but they were not as impressed as the PA800 owners. Obvious to me cause when I program a total registration ( Performance) on my PA1000 it is going to sound exactly the same on your PA1000 whereas if you were to load that onto the PA4X ( assuming the style and soundchoice would be correct) it would still sound different depending on what kind of speakers and/or amplification you are using.
A final observation here on the present situation of the PA1000, actually two.
Some people try to turn the PA1000 into the PA4X , for instance by loading the styles including the factory styles in the same order as on the PA4X.
In my view that is not the best approach. The PA1000 is not a PA4X although it comes pretty close.Simply start on the strenght of the PA1000 and take it from there. For example just load the missing PA4X styles and or Korg bonus styles in the userbanks, etc.etc.
Second, I am sure that Korg will come with minor and major updates for the PA1000 as well. Unfortunately I am also convinced they will not easily cave in to e.g. our request to restore the Style Change button, as that would mean admitting poor judgement and implementation on their side.
to be continued.......

regards,
John

[siebenhirter]

.. I also have to be realistic .....

To be realistic for me means: an Arranger-Keyboard should have a good sound and should be well equipped with features for allowing a creation of an individual, personal, user-friendly environment for myself.

If the mixture of the two components (sound and function) is right, then it is an good arranger-keyboard.
As soon as a keyboard with good sound lacks various functions, it is not usable or - maybe only as an SMF / MP3 player for tightly laced musical program flow.
Also unusable is an arranger keyboard with well parameterizable functions but bad sound.
*
Now, the sounds of high quality keyboards have improved slightly in the last 10 years. If you're honest and listening to demos from digital arranger keyboards ten years ago, you'll hardly notice any great changes in the sound, just in the effects you're using.
*
What has really changed is the miniaturization and performance of the electronic components used inside, with potencies of higher processing speeds and storage capacities. However, this applies to the entire industry of consumer electronics - the production of arranger keyboards has also benefited from this development. The fact that the sound quality has improved to the same extent as the technical development is an illusion.

Korg keyboards like Pa2x, Pa800 or Yamaha Psr8000 / 9000 already had good sounds much earlier. That of course I expect from each new keyboard series, because the higher performance of the hardware must at least maintain or improve the quality standard of the sound.

Likewise, I expect higher storage capacities with more extensive style, sound, sample, registration and song libraries.
*
But as soon as a keyboard with good sound lacks various functions, the criticism of product development should not be refuted with nice excuses. This does not help, to maintain or bring back the functionality in new models that we already had in previous models.

Better would be to think about how to design the next series or the update of the Pa1000 to restore the functionality that is expected of Pa keyboards (Professional Arranger). Otherwise with the environment of a Pa2x, Pa3x, Pa800 and even a Pa500 one is better served, if he attaches more importance to the functionality than to the automatic playing abilities of an instrument.

.. they will not easily cave in to e.g. our request to restore the Style Change button ...

Korg will not make any hardware changes in its recent serie, such as additional buttons for style change or fill-in triggering. But should at least think about whether they want to further restrict the functionality by the savings of some buttons, or whether it would not be more useful to restore the usual functionality (or even expand)
*
PS: My idea how to realize triggering a fill of your choice - what is really among the most basic functions of sequencer on arrangers and workstations - maybe to update OS of Pa1000.
Without active Auto-Fill a quick double-tap maybe a solution. That double-tap should not trigger the buttons-variation but the concerning fill-in regardless of the current variation and then should return to the current variation.

So in case double-tapping Var3 and then again with a single-tap on Var3, one gets to Var3 over a Fill3 independent of the current variation. Therefore you do not need auto fill or auto fill mode - this could be used additional by activating / deactivating Auto-Fill. This procedure might not be as comfortable as with separate fill buttons, but at least that would make it possible to trigger fill-ins according to ones personal choice, as expected from the basic functions of an arranger keyboard.

For a replacement of the "ChangeButton" I have no idea, because even the existing buttons are not suitable for a double occupancy, because even with "Shift + Setlist" or similar constructs already occupied functions are blocked, but also are just as important for a direct access.