sequencing: arranger vs workstation
Moderators: Sharp, X-Trade, Pepperpotty, karmathanever
sequencing: arranger vs workstation
what are some of the differnces sequencing between a workstation such as: m3,triton or an arranger such as the pa800,pa2x.
Korg Pa800
If I where to try explain this as simple as possible, I would have to say that there are technically only two different types of sequencers that KORG use.
The first one is the original and can be found in everything from the M1 right up to the OASYS & M3. The second sequencer can only be found in the pa-Series. KORG never used it before, not even in the i-Series.
As to which is better. I commend KORG Italy for taking on the challenge of developing a new sequencer, but it's still far too young. Compared to the original sequencer, it's a major step backwards, and extremely overcomplicated. On the original sequencer you have drop down menus with all the options available to you, where on the new one each option has an entirely new screen.
So rather than a simple drop down menu that did it all, your now left with a truck load of screen pages to flip through in order to do what you need.
As far as productivity goes, the M3 would be in a different league altogether. Both sequencer can probably do the same things, it's just that the one on the Pa Series is highly disorganised.
My 2 Cents.
Regards.
Sharp.
The first one is the original and can be found in everything from the M1 right up to the OASYS & M3. The second sequencer can only be found in the pa-Series. KORG never used it before, not even in the i-Series.
As to which is better. I commend KORG Italy for taking on the challenge of developing a new sequencer, but it's still far too young. Compared to the original sequencer, it's a major step backwards, and extremely overcomplicated. On the original sequencer you have drop down menus with all the options available to you, where on the new one each option has an entirely new screen.
So rather than a simple drop down menu that did it all, your now left with a truck load of screen pages to flip through in order to do what you need.
As far as productivity goes, the M3 would be in a different league altogether. Both sequencer can probably do the same things, it's just that the one on the Pa Series is highly disorganised.
My 2 Cents.
Regards.
Sharp.
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="530"> <tr> <td rowspan="1" colspan="1" width="267" height="94"> <a href="https://shop.korg.com/kronossoundlibraries"><img name="Image110" src="http://www.irishacts.com/images/Image11_1x1.png" width="267" height="94" border="0" alt="KORG Store - Irish Acts"></a></td> <td rowspan="1" colspan="1" width="263" height="94"> <a href="http://www.irishacts.com"><img name="Image111" src="http://www.irishacts.com/images/Image11_1x2.png" width="263" height="94" border="0" alt="Irish Acts Online Store"></a></td> </tr> </table>
I only use DAW for sequencing. I first sequenced on an ESQ 1 Then on a Triton and decided no keyboard sequencer is as good as a notebook computer screen and some great SW like Cakewalk,Cubase ...
I bought an Arranger to use specific arranger parts in my sequences rather then record the whole style. I am hoping the Korg will allow that. I plan to use the PA2x (if it ever gets here) as a workstation primarily in a DAW situation.
The Korg seemed to be the best of all the Pro Arrangers at making that seamless.
I bought an Arranger to use specific arranger parts in my sequences rather then record the whole style. I am hoping the Korg will allow that. I plan to use the PA2x (if it ever gets here) as a workstation primarily in a DAW situation.
The Korg seemed to be the best of all the Pro Arrangers at making that seamless.
