If there was a Pa3x Pro, what would convince you to buy one?

[Rob Sherratt]

This thread is for suggestions that would require new hardware capabilities in a newly designed arranger keyboard. Call it the Pa3x Pro for the sake of argument. Please post ONE suggestion only in each message, and use the "subject" line to summarise your suggestion.

[Rob Sherratt]

Hardware limitations on keyboard tracks 1 to 8 would be removed.


What do I mean by this? ....

• a) any sound could be assigned to any track 1 to 8 and all these tracks can be played simultaneously via keys.
  
  b) the number of assignable oscillators would have to be increased compared with Pa2x, say up to 320 oscillators.
  
  c) there would be independent split points for every track 1 to 8.
  
  d) each track must have its own independent EFX unit, so that when a Sound is loaded to the track it will program up that EFX unit only and no other one. This means we need 16 independent track based EFX units. There is no need for REVERB or 8-band EQ in the track based EFX units.
  
  e) there should be an independent master EFX and EQ unit that is just used for master REVERB and 8-band EQ in the final mix.
  
  f) Hence there would be a 1:1 mapping between Sounds and EFX's. Track based EFX's would only be specified within each Sound's parameters, nowhere else.
  
  g) Performances would be a collection of Sounds mapped to tracks 1 to 8. There would be no EFX stored in a performance.
  
  h) there would be a new 8-track arpeggiator unit that would allow different arpeggiator settings to be linked to any of the keyboard tracks 1 to 8. The arpeggiator settings would be stored in the Performances. Also performances would not recall styles or vice versa. Each arpeggiator would either operate in fixed chord mode or could respond to keyboard chords or could respond to individual keyboard notes by in effect using each note as a new root note for the arpeggio.

[Rob Sherratt]

Hardware limitations associated with Style tracks 8-16 would be removed.


What do I mean by this? ...

• a) There would be one track based EFX unit for each of the style tracks 9 to 16. Sounds could be freely assignable to each track and the EFX parameters are specified only in the Sound structure.
  
  b) Styles would be a collection of Sounds mapped to tracks 9 to 16, together with the appropriate stored style accompaniment and rhythm MIDI notes. There would be no EFX stored in a style. Also Styles would not recall performances or vice versa. STS's would still be stored in styles so that an STS can switch style variations. An STS would also behave just like a Performance, causing Sounds and Arpeggiators to be assigned to each of Tracks 1 to 8.
  
  c) The concept of a "Style Performance" on the Pa2x/Pa800 should be abandoned. It's too damned confusing. Instead there should be a drop down menu item called "Write Style" from within Style Play mode which will do the same thing as "Write Style Perf". We should not have to enter Record mode first. The only reason for entering Record mode would be to record new style rhythms/ accompaniments.

[Rob Sherratt]

The OS should access data by name not by physical address.


What do I mean by this? ....

• Many of the difficulties in managing the data structures on the Pa2x/ Pa800 arise because the OS accesses everything using physical addresses. So if the user relocates a sound or drumkit, then any styles or performances that previously used that sound or drumkit will fail to play correctly.
  
  Hence in the Pa3x, every style, sound, drumkit, style, performance, STS or whatever must be accessed by name not by physical address. The OS must maintain a mapping table between names and physical storage locations, and must ensure this mapping table is always kept up to date. The OS must also enforce the uniqueness of names to ensure there are never any duplicates. If the user attempts to load something with a duplicated name, then the OS must modify the name to resolve any possible conflict.
  
  This will allow the user to program the Pa3x with whatever sounds, styles, samples, performances we want, in any storage location we want, and everything will be guaranteed to work! It will also encourage the independent development of new sounds and styles.

[Rob Sherratt]

There must be an XML schema definition for the musical resources and other configurable data items on the new keyboard.


What do I mean by this?

• XML schema is the open standards "eXtensible Markup Language". It is used to define data structures and data relationships in such a way that anyone can write software that can use that data.
  
  The Pa3x must be supplied with an XML schema for the internal data structures. This XML schema must be re-issued each time there is a new OS release, preferably being issued to developers several months in advance of the release of new OS's.
  
  This will encourage third party software developers to create computer-based software that can simplify the management of data for the Pa3x. It will allow software to be developed that can automate the production of styles, sounds, samples, drumkits etc for the Pa3x.
  
  Does the publication of an XML schema allow a competitor to design a keyboard that will displace Korg from the number 1 position? Of course not. Korg would remain as the owner of the XML schema. The Korg OS would continue to be developed and would only run on Korg hardware which uses Korg proprietary devices. No other manufacturer could keep up or justify the investment required to run a race with Korg.
  
  Furthermore, XML schema definitions must be available for all MIDI SysEx data, and it must be possible for MIDI SysEx data messages to be constructed that will modify any of the data items inside the Pa3x (if the user wishes to allow this).

[Lee]

The Sounds in the current PA series, while some are outstanding, some need major work to be the quality I want.

Examples:

1) While playing slow pieces especially it is apparent that the curret PA series has issues with the samples used. Some sounds have big variaces in timbre (actual sound) NOTE to NOTE, usually in groups of a few keys indicatng a poor job was done in samples or sample selection.

2) On some sounds...While playing...the vibrato varies in speed/depth NOTE to NOTE.
This is terrible and ruins your performance. Vibrato should be done in the DSP not the sample (Unless GREAT care is taken in he sampling process to make them all match)

3) Some sounds get very weak in the upper octives.

4) I would like better solo instuments...true to the actual instrument..example solo Violins.

I beleive some of this could actually be done NOW with the current PA series instuments and I hope it does get done for my PA2XPRO. I think user voices could be added to do some of this. I believe all of the samples are in hardware chips, so I think we are limited to sample memory to fix some of these sounds with issues?

While I really do like the PA2XPRO very much...This is an area of dissappointment as my other PRO keyboards do not have these sound problems (Kurzweil K2600x and Kurzweil PC3)

I might also add...the Korg M3 has some of the same issues.

Lee

[Rob Sherratt]

Hi Lee,

As you say this is an issue for the present Pa2x and Pa800 keyboards. It could be fixed by improving the samples and the sound design using the hardware that is available now. I hope Korg or someone else does this. It's not too difficult for anyone with a recording studio to do it.

So don't take offence but you are off topic

[iaoranaemaeva]

+1 to all your suggestions, Rob

[Lee]

Rob, Sorry to go off topic...I thought I was on topic because these issues were not fixable in current PA because the samples were burned in a chip??? If so that is exciting for sure...

So are you saying the samples could be replaced in the current models?
Most of these issues are in the samples,,,or selection of the samples used.

Thanks,
Lee

[Lee]

A bigger touch screen would be a good reason to go PA3.

Lee

[Asena]

I would like to use any VSTI,
Also better Styles,
OK ROB you know me, i always put this in the forum topic,s . MODERN STYLES!

For example, I changed some of the Bas drum kicks, to samples from Reason, I Sampled and converted , ANd maaan , Like LEE says, its better, and it,s more bottom.So i hope better BOTTOM and better sounds, better OS, And more NEW MODERN stuf , Not only CHA CHA from IS 40 converted for PA2X.

Better LCD whit better colors and bigger Screen.

A editor that can handle better in sound editing, Not only see RAM, PCM, bla bla...
Style making program that is like a CUBASE, but when you finish the style its ready for your music making.
More FX per channel.

Arp func.

REAL filter events, Comoon even FL has done this.
So ROB , I,m asking 2 maco?

[garabed02]

I would like to :

1 - have more RAM memory(at least 1 gb)
2 - use pa2x as workstation and arranger(for exampler in sequencer mode, add 8 audio tracks...)
3 - have more inputs and outpouts and control them like a mixer, then we can use the keyboard as a sound card too!
5 - to have new sounds!!! new guitars, drums(acoustic), and others
6 - to have a version with 88 keys (piano feeling)
....................

Actually, I am very happy with my pa2xpro so, its may be a futurist keyboard I am describing.

Best regards

[Rob Sherratt]

Rob, Sorry to go off topic...I thought I was on topic because these issues were not fixable in current PA because the samples were burned in a chip??? If so that is exciting for sure...

So are you saying the samples could be replaced in the current models?
Most of these issues are in the samples,,,or selection of the samples used.

Thanks,
Lee

Hi Lee,

You have a very good point. Of course we can load updated samples for the factory sounds into user RAM, but that is not the same as having them instantly on. Sorry for saying you were off topic!

So I think a requirement for any new Pa3x is that the factory sounds must be upgradeable, at least by having a plug-in ROM chip that can be replaced by a new ROM produced by korg or 3rd party suppliers in the future. Maybe this is also possible on the Pa2x but at the moment I do not know. I will try to find out.

[Lee]

Rob,
Yes my friend...exactly...that way they can be upgraded/fixed when any problem is fund. Actually with todays technology...they could be in programmable memory instead of EEPROM plugged in (hardware update requred).

Korg could have a permenent lock to allow only writes with no reads by utility programs, if they are concerned with protecting the sampes from copying by competitors.

Lee

[AVI6520]

ROB-
All what that you have write is great

I hope that after all the "wishes"…
http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... 82&start=0

And "suggestions"…
http://www.korgforums.com/forum/phpBB2/ ... 77&start=0

And this wonderful post of sensible brains!

KORG will really do it in the future, and things that can be in the OS to be in the future OS and not only with a new PA KB.

Are they want to be the winners in the market or not?

It is cost money to use advisors in a company, and we are giving them all of that for free too! [Not only the OS for free… ].