 |
Korg Forums
A forum for Korg product users and musicians around the world.
Moderated Independently.
Owned by Irish Acts Recording Studio & hosted by KORG USA
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hal2001
Senior Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 367
Location: US
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:21 pm Post subject: Which would work better as a pseudo arranger? |
 |
|
| I can't decide what's good for my situation. I started out wanting an arranger keyboard for auto-accompaniment rhythms on the fly live playing, thus had Korg pa3x and Tyros 4 in mind. If I don't get an arranger, which keyboard, the Kronos or Motif XF would give me the closest capability of making good rhythm patterns on the fly with my left hand to make it good enough sounding to play solo? Which keyboard would be better able to do that out of the box - i.e already have a good bank of presets that could be pulled up? I have Fantom X8 that I've used all along but I don't want to spend time creating my own patterns from scratch right now and I don't want to sit down on a computer and mess with software. I just want to get down to it and play. I play new age, electronic, ambient, pop, and ballads. I like good quality acoustic piano sounds, cool sounding electronic sounds like spacey soft pads and vibrating tones. My problem is none of my stores carry arrangers to try and I can't get to a Kronos yet either. Next week I can sit down with an XF. I appreciate any thoughts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
xmlguy
Platinum Member
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 3605
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If you don't mind having the workstation tied to a laptop, you can add very nice arranger features to any workstation with Band In A Box and RealBand. BIAB+laptop is often cheaper than the additional cost of top tier arrangers vs. workstations. BIAB also has a wide range of backing tracks that aren't merely midi but are generated from pro session samples, called RealTracks. RealBand is more powerful than hardware arrangers, which much more customization for how to jump around the various parts in a style. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hal2001
Senior Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 367
Location: US
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 7:08 pm Post subject: BIAB |
|
|
Thanks muchi xmiguy for another thing to consider. I have not used any music software but I have basic Garage Band 11' (without logic) on my mac. Is that basically the idea, to create loops etc and sequence them on the software instead of sequencing them directly on the Keyboard? The Roland Fantom X has a nice 16 track sequencing screen but then again it takes time to start from scratch when you're not used to the functions. Are you saying it's a lot easier to create sequences on the computer software? Is Garage Band the same principal as BIAB or is it totally different - and then how does BIAB compare to some other things I've heard of like FL Studio, Ableton and Sonar, none of which I'm personally familiar with. User friendliness is at this stage more important to me than really deep features that take a lot of time to master. Thanks much. BTW regarding Motif vs Kronos, several people have described to me the sounds of Korg in general to be "thin" and the Motifs to be "rich and warm." Would you say that's true?
Hal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ozy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is Busch around here?
I need to test the CP-5 and CP-1 again, and I'd love to try Busch's presets (especially the hanckock, zawinul and corea emulations).
I mean: the ones which you used in the youtube demo.
Are they available?
thx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burningbusch
Approved Merchant
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1203
Location: Seattle
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
burningbusch
Approved Merchant
Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 1203
Location: Seattle
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hal2001,
If you're looking for auto-accompaniment you can't beat the arranger keyboards. The Motif XF has a lot of ARPs (called STYLES in the arranger world) that are derived from the Yamaha arrangers. The problem is, you can only switch between five in any PERFORMANCE and only four background instruments can be driven by the ARPs. If you press a FILL, you have to remember to next press a standard pattern otherwise the fill will keep repeating. In comparison, the arrangers have 3-4 intros, 4 main song patterns and 3-4 endings with nice auto fills that happen when you goto the next pattern. They can control many more background instruments and the patterns are more elaborate than the Motif ARPs. In the Motif's favor, it has more in the electronica/chill genres that what you typically find on the arrangers which focus largely on traditional styles.
A nice option just popped up from Roland, the BK7m. This is a standalone module that can be controlled from any MIDI keyboard. It has 400 styles and the auto-accompaniment power you'd expect from an arranger.
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.php?ProductId=1141&ParentId=72
I could see using the BK-7m with a Kronos giving you a VERY strong synth/keyboard with the arranger functionality. Kronos also has KARMA which is often used as you would an arranger. I think it's very good for some of the styles you mentioned such electronica, new age, etc. KARMA is more open to realtime manipulation of the patterns, so this aren't going to be as canned. It's a very powerful system.
As far as the Korgs sound thin and the Yamahas fat, that's ridicules. You might find a sound here or there that you can make that claim, but it sounds like either an uneducated or biased opinion.
From what I'm hearing from the demos, the Kronos is going to be an excellent sounding keyboard.
Oh, the other thing many players find objectionable to arrangers is the plastic look and feel as well as the limited options for keyboard actions (fully weighted hammer actions are very hard to find, although Korg makes one).
Busch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Penumbra
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: Kronos vs CP1/5 and Motif XF? |
|
|
| vEddY wrote: | | aquablue wrote: | I am wondering, is this combination better than a Kronos?
Motif XF: Pros over Kronos: 4 real arps whereas Kronos has no programmable arps at all (karma too complicated to create arps on keyboard), famous yamaha acoustic samples that are beyond Kronos in certain areas, flash ram which allows me to load anything I want (vs no flash for Kronos), karma 3 vs 2 now.
|
<irony>
I'm really surprised... Why didn't somebody tell me that arpeggiator is a thing that's more relevant then Karma? Holy crap! I must have been asleep in the past six or so years using Karma on my OASYS.
</irony>
Let's go back to "normal" mode here. First you take a dump on Karma with those 4 arpeggiators which is something Karma can do (and much better, while we're at it) with its eyes closed, then you list it as a feature where XF is better then Kronos? Of course, without mentioning the fact that Kronos has Karma built-in whereas for Karma on XF you need to have a computer connected to it?
You're one funny man, really.
BTW, flash memory isn't a plus, it's a backward-way of thinking about "having samples in memory all the time". That time has really passed and streaming is a much, much better way to go. Unloading samples that you don't need is a good option definitely. There is absolutely no need to have everything in RAM all the time. Not a single top-notch sampled software instrument works in that way these days.
Now if only KORG were to allow streaming of user samples. That would pretty much bury any hope of XF being compared to the Kronos and coming out of that comparison "on dreamy top". Because then and only then would it be possible.
| aquablue wrote: | | It seems like it is basically all focused on piano. No wonder the guitar sounds poor compared to the XF given that the piano takes up everything. |
Really? HD-1 sounds are the only thing where XF would stand a comparison chance. And you missed the fact that AL-1 is light years ahead of anything Yamaha has and doesn't have anything comparable to it? Or STR-1. Or CX-3. And don't even get me started on XF's laughable 4-voice performance mode. That's the mother of all unflexible things on a modern-day keyboard. |
He's right, the guitars and the other acoustic sounds sucks. 12GB wasted on pianos. Go to hell Korg. Ah, and thanks very much for screwing us all Oasys customers. Thanks for the lies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ozy
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
thx a lot Busch
will let you know if you "sold" me the cp1 or what (it's still a runner against the kronos) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hal2001
Senior Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 367
Location: US
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 4:56 am Post subject: Arrangers vs Kronos & Motif XF |
|
|
| burningbusch wrote: | Hal2001,
If you're looking for auto-accompaniment you can't beat the arranger keyboards. The Motif XF has a lot of ARPs (called STYLES in the arranger world) that are derived from the Yamaha arrangers. The problem is, you can only switch between five in any PERFORMANCE and only four background instruments can be driven by the ARPs. If you press a FILL, you have to remember to next press a standard pattern otherwise the fill will keep repeating. In comparison, the arrangers have 3-4 intros, 4 main song patterns and 3-4 endings with nice auto fills that happen when you goto the next pattern. They can control many more background instruments and the patterns are more elaborate than the Motif ARPs. In the Motif's favor, it has more in the electronica/chill genres that what you typically find on the arrangers which focus largely on traditional styles.
A nice option just popped up from Roland, the BK7m. This is a standalone module that can be controlled from any MIDI keyboard. It has 400 styles and the auto-accompaniment power you'd expect from an arranger.
http://www.rolandus.com/products/productdetails.php?ProductId=1141&ParentId=72
I could see using the BK-7m with a Kronos giving you a VERY strong synth/keyboard with the arranger functionality. Kronos also has KARMA which is often used as you would an arranger. I think it's very good for some of the styles you mentioned such electronica, new age, etc. KARMA is more open to realtime manipulation of the patterns, so this aren't going to be as canned. It's a very powerful system.
As far as the Korgs sound thin and the Yamahas fat, that's ridicules. You might find a sound here or there that you can make that claim, but it sounds like either an uneducated or biased opinion.
From what I'm hearing from the demos, the Kronos is going to be an excellent sounding keyboard.
Oh, the other thing many players find objectionable to arrangers is the plastic look and feel as well as the limited options for keyboard actions (fully weighted hammer actions are very hard to find, although Korg makes one).
Busch. |
Thanks much for your in-depth information. Yes the Kronos demos I've heard sounded mighty rich to me and not thin at all. And the synth effects are awesome. As you say, and as would be expected the arrangers would have to be best for auto-accompaniment since that's their dedicated task. However, I don't know how uncanned the latest ones will sound. I think the Audya may have the better auto-accompaniment variation and less canned sound but I'm afraid to risk the supposed OS bugs and weak customer support in the US and I think it may be more limited in the modern sounds. The new Roland BK is probably a good unit but then I'd imagine I would run into the same lack of user-friendliness and lack of intuitiveness that I experienced interacting with my Yamaha QY100 rhythm machine, which actually put out very good preset sound styles IMO but has very limited number of ready to use styles, is a bit awkward to use, and is awful for programming new styles. My dealers are still waiting for the Kronos, pa3x and TY4 to come to their stores. In the meantime thanks for your thoughts and suggestions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xmlguy
Platinum Member
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Posts: 3605
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 6:56 am Post subject: Re: BIAB |
|
|
| Hal2001 wrote: | Thanks muchi xmiguy for another thing to consider. I have not used any music software but I have basic Garage Band 11' (without logic) on my mac. Is that basically the idea, to create loops etc and sequence them on the software instead of sequencing them directly on the Keyboard? The Roland Fantom X has a nice 16 track sequencing screen but then again it takes time to start from scratch when you're not used to the functions. Are you saying it's a lot easier to create sequences on the computer software? Is Garage Band the same principal as BIAB or is it totally different - and then how does BIAB compare to some other things I've heard of like FL Studio, Ableton and Sonar, none of which I'm personally familiar with. User friendliness is at this stage more important to me than really deep features that take a lot of time to master. Thanks much. BTW regarding Motif vs Kronos, several people have described to me the sounds of Korg in general to be "thin" and the Motifs to be "rich and warm." Would you say that's true?
Hal |
BIAB and RealBand are very different than most DAW packages. They are designed for auto accompaniment and creating dynamic backing tracks, DAWS usually aren't, even though they can be used that way if you bend them to your will.
I don't think the terms "thin, rich, and warm" have any useful meaning to compare synths. They are just too general and depend entirely on what the person using them thinks they mean, not universal truths. I think that the better one learns the synth, the more rich and warm that they can make it become suited to their own taste and preference. Every synth I own is rich and warm, because I know how to make patches that are rich and warm to me. I can make my $30 DS-10+ software sound rich and warm. When I hear people complain that such and such is thin, I usually don't accept that information at face value because in most cases, the problem is them, not the gear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hal2001
Senior Member
Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 367
Location: US
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: BIAB |
|
|
| xmlguy wrote: | | Hal2001 wrote: | Thanks muchi xmiguy for another thing to consider. I have not used any music software but I have basic Garage Band 11' (without logic) on my mac. Is that basically the idea, to create loops etc and sequence them on the software instead of sequencing them directly on the Keyboard? The Roland Fantom X has a nice 16 track sequencing screen but then again it takes time to start from scratch when you're not used to the functions. Are you saying it's a lot easier to create sequences on the computer software? Is Garage Band the same principal as BIAB or is it totally different - and then how does BIAB compare to some other things I've heard of like FL Studio, Ableton and Sonar, none of which I'm personally familiar with. User friendliness is at this stage more important to me than really deep features that take a lot of time to master. Thanks much. BTW regarding Motif vs Kronos, several people have described to me the sounds of Korg in general to be "thin" and the Motifs to be "rich and warm." Would you say that's true?
Hal |
BIAB and RealBand are very different than most DAW packages. They are designed for auto accompaniment and creating dynamic backing tracks, DAWS usually aren't, even though they can be used that way if you bend them to your will.
I don't think the terms "thin, rich, and warm" have any useful meaning to compare synths. They are just too general and depend entirely on what the person using them thinks they mean, not universal truths. I think that the better one learns the synth, the more rich and warm that they can make it become suited to their own taste and preference. Every synth I own is rich and warm, because I know how to make patches that are rich and warm to me. I can make my $30 DS-10+ software sound rich and warm. When I hear people complain that such and such is thin, I usually don't accept that information at face value because in most cases, the problem is them, not the gear. |
Thanks much for the DAWS distinctions, particularly since I am focusing on auto-accompaniment and backing tracks. Also I can see your point about patch qualities like thin/rich. Since my initial intention is to use the keyboard (arranger) out of the box without tweaking, I have been reacting to the factory default voices that they chose to put up front and I have been most likely to hear. Makes sense.
Hal |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
